Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-09T09:34:46.968Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quine on Explication and Elimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Martin Gustafsson
Martin Gustafsson*
Affiliation:
Stockholm University Stockholm Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In section 53 of Word and Object, Quine argues that the set-theoretical explications of the concept of the ordered pair of f ered by mathematicians such as Wiener and Kuratowski give us a model for the clarification of philosophically troublesome ideas. According to Quine, ordered pairs might seem indispensible in science. But at the same time they have appeared unclear to many philosophers, who have argued that an extensional treatment of the logic of relations can be satisfactory only to the extent that we can give a transparent and substantial explanation of what an ordered pair really is. Quine cites Peirce as someone who tries to meet this sort of demand. The explanation Peirce offers is mentalistic, but it is not the mentalism that Quine regards as the most fundamental problem with Peirce's account.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 57 - 70
Copyright
Copyright ©The Authors 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benacerraf, P. 1965. ‘What Numbers Could Not Be’, Phüosophical Review 74 47–73.Google Scholar
Dipert, R.R. 1982. ‘Set-Theoretical Representations of Ordered Pairs and Their Adequacy for the Logic of Relations’, Canadiern Journal of Philosophy 12 353-74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R.F. 2004a. ‘Quine's Behaviorism cum Empiricism’, in Gibson 2004b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R.F. ed. 2004b. The Cambridge Companion to Quine. Cambridge: Cambridge University.Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, L.E. and P.A., Schupp eds. 1986. The Philosophy of W.V. Quine. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hylton, P. 2004. ‘Quine on Reference and Ontology’, in Gibson, 2004b.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanamori, A. 2003. ‘The Empty Set, the Singleton, and the Ordered Pair’, The Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 9 273-98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orenstein, A. 2002. W.V. Quine. Princeton: Princeton University.Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1975. ‘Mind and Verbal Dispositions’, in Mind and Language, Guttenplan, S. ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1976. The Ways of Paradox and Other Essays. Revised and Enlarged Edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1981. Theories and Things. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1986. ‘Reply to Paul A. Roth’, in Hahn and Schilpp, 1986.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1992. Pursuit of Truth. Revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W.V. 1995. From Stimulus to Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1903. Principles of Mathematics. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Stemmer, N. 2001. ‘The Mind-Body Problem and Quine's Repudiation Theory’, Behavior and Philosophy 29 187–202.Google Scholar
Wiener, N. 1914. ‘A Simplification of the Logic of Relations’, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 17 387-90.Google Scholar