« Two Related Political Mistakes | Main | Synoptics »

Monday, September 06, 2021

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I agree with the proposition (6) that "No concept in a finite mind of an externally singular item is singular in content in the sense of encoding every property of the wholly determinate or complete thing of which it is the concept", hence disagree with (7).

You conclude "there are no individual concepts". But you haven't defined 'individual concept'. How does your argument engage with the argument in Reference and Identity for 'anaphoric' singular/individual concepts? These are ultimately 'internal' in your sense. I say 'ultimately' because such anaphoric concepts are communicable or shareable, so long as we all have access to the antecedent text. And they are individual, in the sense that they cannot be plural, and continue to be anaphoric in modal contexts.

Oh I see that Sainsbury defines 'individual concept'. But then is your conclusion directed against individual concepts as he defines them, or individual concepts in general? If the former, you should make this clear. If the latter, you should explain how you rule out anaphoric concepts as a possibility.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

October 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
Blog powered by Typepad