70 ideas
| 7950 | Philosophy tries to explain how the actual is possible, given that it seems impossible [Macdonald,C] |
| 7923 | 'Did it for the sake of x' doesn't involve a sake, so how can ontological commitments be inferred? [Macdonald,C] |
| 9123 | Someone standing in a doorway seems to be both in and not-in the room [Priest,G, by Sorensen] |
| 7933 | Don't assume that a thing has all the properties of its parts [Macdonald,C] |
| 8720 | A logic is 'relevant' if premise and conclusion are connected, and 'paraconsistent' allows contradictions [Priest,G, by Friend] |
| 9672 | Free logic is one of the few first-order non-classical logics [Priest,G] |
| 9697 | X1 x X2 x X3... x Xn indicates the 'cartesian product' of those sets [Priest,G] |
| 9685 | <a,b&62; is a set whose members occur in the order shown [Priest,G] |
| 9674 | {x; A(x)} is a set of objects satisfying the condition A(x) [Priest,G] |
| 9673 | {a1, a2, ...an} indicates that a set comprising just those objects [Priest,G] |
| 9675 | a ∈ X says a is an object in set X; a ∉ X says a is not in X [Priest,G] |
| 9677 | Φ indicates the empty set, which has no members [Priest,G] |
| 9676 | {a} is the 'singleton' set of a (not the object a itself) [Priest,G] |
| 9678 | X⊆Y means set X is a 'subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9679 | X⊂Y means set X is a 'proper subset' of set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9681 | X = Y means the set X equals the set Y [Priest,G] |
| 9683 | X ∩ Y indicates the 'intersection' of sets X and Y, the objects which are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| 9684 | Y - X is the 'relative complement' of X with respect to Y; the things in Y that are not in X [Priest,G] |
| 9682 | X∪Y indicates the 'union' of all the things in sets X and Y [Priest,G] |
| 9692 | The 'union' of two sets is a set containing all the things in either of the sets [Priest,G] |
| 9693 | The 'intersection' of two sets is a set of the things that are in both sets [Priest,G] |
| 9694 | The 'relative complement' is things in the second set not in the first [Priest,G] |
| 9698 | The 'induction clause' says complex formulas retain the properties of their basic formulas [Priest,G] |
| 9696 | A 'cartesian product' of sets is the set of all the n-tuples with one member in each of the sets [Priest,G] |
| 9686 | A 'set' is a collection of objects [Priest,G] |
| 9687 | A 'member' of a set is one of the objects in the set [Priest,G] |
| 9695 | An 'ordered pair' (or ordered n-tuple) is a set with its members in a particular order [Priest,G] |
| 9688 | A 'singleton' is a set with only one member [Priest,G] |
| 9689 | The 'empty set' or 'null set' has no members [Priest,G] |
| 9690 | A set is a 'subset' of another set if all of its members are in that set [Priest,G] |
| 9691 | A 'proper subset' is smaller than the containing set [Priest,G] |
| 9680 | The empty set Φ is a subset of every set (including itself) [Priest,G] |
| 13373 | Typically, paradoxes are dealt with by dividing them into two groups, but the division is wrong [Priest,G] |
| 13368 | The 'least indefinable ordinal' is defined by that very phrase [Priest,G] |
| 13370 | 'x is a natural number definable in less than 19 words' leads to contradiction [Priest,G] |
| 13369 | By diagonalization we can define a real number that isn't in the definable set of reals [Priest,G] |
| 13366 | The least ordinal greater than the set of all ordinals is both one of them and not one of them [Priest,G] |
| 13367 | The next set up in the hierarchy of sets seems to be both a member and not a member of it [Priest,G] |
| 13372 | There are Liar Pairs, and Liar Chains, which fit the same pattern as the basic Liar [Priest,G] |
| 13371 | If you know that a sentence is not one of the known sentences, you know its truth [Priest,G] |
| 7944 | Reduce by bridge laws (plus property identities?), by elimination, or by reducing talk [Macdonald,C] |
| 7938 | Relational properties are clearly not essential to substances [Macdonald,C] |
| 7967 | Being taller is an external relation, but properties and substances have internal relations [Macdonald,C] |
| 7965 | Does the knowledge of each property require an infinity of accompanying knowledge? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7934 | Tropes are abstract (two can occupy the same place), but not universals (they have locations) [Macdonald,C] |
| 7958 | Properties are sets of exactly resembling property-particulars [Macdonald,C] |
| 7972 | Tropes are abstract particulars, not concrete particulars, so the theory is not nominalist [Macdonald,C] |
| 7959 | How do a group of resembling tropes all resemble one another in the same way? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7960 | Trope Nominalism is the only nominalism to introduce new entities, inviting Ockham's Razor [Macdonald,C] |
| 7951 | Numerical sameness is explained by theories of identity, but what explains qualitative identity? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7964 | How can universals connect instances, if they are nothing like them? [Macdonald,C] |
| 7971 | Real Nominalism is only committed to concrete particulars, word-tokens, and (possibly) sets [Macdonald,C] |
| 7955 | Resemblance Nominalism cannot explain either new resemblances, or absence of resemblances [Macdonald,C] |
| 7961 | A 'thing' cannot be in two places at once, and two things cannot be in the same place at once [Macdonald,C] |
| 7926 | We 'individuate' kinds of object, and 'identify' particular specimens [Macdonald,C] |
| 7936 | Unlike bundles of properties, substances have an intrinsic unity [Macdonald,C] |
| 7930 | The bundle theory of substance implies the identity of indiscernibles [Macdonald,C] |
| 7932 | A phenomenalist cannot distinguish substance from attribute, so must accept the bundle view [Macdonald,C] |
| 7937 | When we ascribe a property to a substance, the bundle theory will make that a tautology [Macdonald,C] |
| 7939 | Substances persist through change, but the bundle theory says they can't [Macdonald,C] |
| 7940 | A substance might be a sequence of bundles, rather than a single bundle [Macdonald,C] |
| 7948 | A statue and its matter have different persistence conditions, so they are not identical [Macdonald,C] |
| 7929 | A substance is either a bundle of properties, or a bare substratum, or an essence [Macdonald,C] |
| 7941 | Each substance contains a non-property, which is its substratum or bare particular [Macdonald,C] |
| 7942 | The substratum theory explains the unity of substances, and their survival through change [Macdonald,C] |
| 7943 | A substratum has the quality of being bare, and they are useless because indiscernible [Macdonald,C] |
| 7927 | At different times Leibniz articulated three different versions of his so-called Law [Macdonald,C] |
| 7928 | The Identity of Indiscernibles is false, because it is not necessarily true [Macdonald,C] |
| 20653 | Six reduction levels: groups, lives, cells, molecules, atoms, particles [Putnam/Oppenheim, by Watson] |
| 7947 | In continuity, what matters is not just the beginning and end states, but the process itself [Macdonald,C] |