Ontology and Arbitrariness.
In many different ontological debates, anti-arbitrariness considerations push one towards two opposing extremes. For example, in debates about mereology, one may be pushed towards a maximal ontology (mereological universalism) or a minimal ontology (mereological nihilism), because any intermediate v...
| Published in: | Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 100; no. 3; pp. 485 - 496 |
|---|---|
| Main Author: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Sep2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | View this record in EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=159267498&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 159267498 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 00048402 BHK jtl: Australasian Journal of Philosophy issn: 00048402 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Sep2022 vid: 100 iid: 3 pid: 377 pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd artinfo: ui: 159267498 10.1080/00048402.2021.1931377 ppf: 485 ppct: 11 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 785KB tig: atl: Ontology and Arbitrariness. aug: au: Builes, David affil: New York University su: Ontology Debate Whole & parts (Philosophy) Universalism (Philosophy) Philosophy of mathematics sug: subj: Ontology Debate Whole & parts (Philosophy) Universalism (Philosophy) Philosophy of mathematics keyword: abstract objects arbitrariness indefinite extensibility modality ontology ab: In many different ontological debates, anti-arbitrariness considerations push one towards two opposing extremes. For example, in debates about mereology, one may be pushed towards a maximal ontology (mereological universalism) or a minimal ontology (mereological nihilism), because any intermediate view seems objectionably arbitrary. However, it is usually thought that anti-arbitrariness considerations on their own cannot decide between these maximalist or minimalist views. I will argue that this is a mistake. Anti-arbitrariness arguments may be used to motivate a certain popular thesis in the philosophy of mathematics that rules out the maximalist view in many different ontological debates. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Australasian Journal of Philosophy is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Australasian Journal of Philosophy holder: Taylor & Francis Ltd dt: @attributes: year: 2022 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|