Yet Devitt's ostrich nominalism must still account for why distinct predicate tokens 'F', 'F', 'F' apply to the same objects—a sameness that is not itself expressible without quantifying over a shared feature.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Devitt(the statement refers to his theory called 'ostrich nominalism'): Michael Devitt is a philosopher who studies how language and thought connect to the real world; he's known for developing a specific theory about how we use words to refer to things.
Ostrich nominalism(Devitt's particular approach to the problem of universal properties): A philosophical position that denies abstract objects (like properties or numbers) exist; the 'ostrich' part suggests it avoids or ignores the problem of explaining how similar things are similar without appealing to shared abstract features.
Predicate tokens(the statement mentions three separate uses of 'F'): Individual instances or uses of a descriptive word; if you write 'red' three times on a page, each one is a separate token (even though they're all the same word).
Quantifying over(describing what the statement does): Making a statement that applies to a whole group or category of things (like saying 'all dogs are animals' rather than talking about one specific dog).
nominalism(Metaphysics; opposed to realism about universals): The view that abstract entities such as properties or universals do not exist, and that predicative facts must be explained without appealing to such entities.
predicate(Logical/grammatical ontology in Eisagoge): Either a sound signifying a meaning or a meaning signified by a certain sound

2 topics