Comments on: Parsons’s Mathematical Thought: Sec. 7 http://www.logicmatters.net/2008/06/parsonss-mathematical-thought-sec-7/ Logic, enthusiasms, sceptical thoughts, and a little LaTeX geekery Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:23:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Chris Pincock http://www.logicmatters.net/2008/06/parsonss-mathematical-thought-sec-7/comment-page-1/#comment-342 Chris Pincock Tue, 01 Jul 2008 00:49:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=305#comment-342 Great series of posts on the Parsons book -- I hope you can keep them up! I have <a HREF="http://hnsttl.blogspot.com/2008/06/quasi-concrete-objects.html" REL="nofollow">similar misgivings</a> about how quasi-concrete objects are introduced. It seems like Parsons has epistemological motivations for this focus on intrinsic representation, and that maybe for this purpose the type-token relationship is enough. But I am with you in thinking that some impure abstract objects lack intrinic representatives. Great series of posts on the Parsons book — I hope you can keep them up! I have similar misgivings about how quasi-concrete objects are introduced. It seems like Parsons has epistemological motivations for this focus on intrinsic representation, and that maybe for this purpose the type-token relationship is enough. But I am with you in thinking that some impure abstract objects lack intrinic representatives.

]]> By: Timmo http://www.logicmatters.net/2008/06/parsonss-mathematical-thought-sec-7/comment-page-1/#comment-336 Timmo Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:38:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=305#comment-336 Does Parsons say anything about universals or Platonic Forms? If I remember right, in his book <i>Nonexistent Objects</i>, Parsons construes Platonic Forms as nonexistent objects: x is the form of F if and only if F is the sole nuclear property possessed by x.<br/><br/>Do these count as quasi-concrete objects? If so, then we have something of an explanation of what it means for an object to participate in a Form. That is, to participate in the Form of F is to be a <i>representative</i> of a particular quasi-concrete object, namely the Form of F. Does Parsons say anything about universals or Platonic Forms? If I remember right, in his book Nonexistent Objects, Parsons construes Platonic Forms as nonexistent objects: x is the form of F if and only if F is the sole nuclear property possessed by x.

Do these count as quasi-concrete objects? If so, then we have something of an explanation of what it means for an object to participate in a Form. That is, to participate in the Form of F is to be a representative of a particular quasi-concrete object, namely the Form of F.

]]> By: Ocham http://www.logicmatters.net/2008/06/parsonss-mathematical-thought-sec-7/comment-page-1/#comment-332 Ocham Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:21:00 +0000 http://www.logicmatters.net/?p=305#comment-332 I'm following this with interest. I’m following this with interest.

]]>