Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→'The ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speaking, untrue

    'The ball has the property of redness' does commit to the existence of the property of redness

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    'The ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speaking, untrueA sentence that commits to the existence of entities that do not exist is strict...There are no such things as properties

    Similar

    If one accepts that 'the ball has the property of redness' is true, on...95%'The ball has the property of redness' is, strictly speaking, untrue92%The expression 'the property of redness' in 'the ball has the property...90%Filling the redness role is necessary and sufficient for a property to...83%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: platonism
    View source passageHide passage
    In this sentence, the expression ‘the property of redness’ seems to be a singular term — it seems to denote the property of redness; thus, using the above criterion of ontological commitment, if we think (R) is true, then it would seem, we are committed to believing in the property of redness. But there are two different responses that nominalists can make to this. First, they can endorse paraphrase nominalism (defined a few paragraphs back) with respect to (R). If they do this, they will claim

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective