Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Quine's criterion of ontological commitment requires that FOL= identity statements quantify over determinate objects prior to any sortal classification.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Identity can be relative to sortal frameworks; x=y 'as artifacts' differs from x=y 'as masses,' without requiring pre-sortal objects.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
No determinate object-hood exists prior to conceptual scheme; 'object' itself is sortal, making pre-sortal commitment incoherent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quine conflates metaphysical commitment with logical form; FOL syntax doesn't entail that domains contain unsorted, category-neutral entities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Quantification in FOL presupposes a domain of objects; identity statements make this domain explicit, requiring pre-sortal individuation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Sortals classify objects post hoc; the identity relation itself must operate on determinate entities independent of classification schemes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Quine's criterion avoids circularity: if sortals determined identity, we'd need prior criteria to choose among competing sortal schemes.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.