Universals: Bambrough on Wittgenstein
Dilman (Ilham)
Source: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 1978-1979
Paper - Abstract

Paper StatisticsDisclaimer

Philosophers Index Abstract

    1) Universals1 as ingredients. Wittgenstein's rejection of the 'common property' thesis. This does not make him a nominalist. 2) An aspect of wittgenstein's attack on essentialism. 'Common property' thesis inspired by mathematics (see "theaetetus" 148) but comes from a misunderstanding of it which ignores its application. In the end the meaning of any term can only be gathered from the particular cases in which it is applicable. 3) Classification and reality. Examination and rejection of bambrough's view that in the end all classification rests on 'objective similarities and differences', presented by nature independently of our language. Wittgenstein did not hold such a view. 4) Kinds and formal categories. We do not start our classifications with 'bare particulars'. We must already speak a language before we can either compare anything or have anything to classify.

Text Colour Conventions (see disclaimer)

  1. Blue: Text by me; © Theo Todman, 2019
  2. Mauve: Text by correspondent(s) or other author(s); © the author(s)

© Theo Todman, June 2007 - Jan 2019. Please address any comments on this page to theo@theotodman.com. File output:
Website Maintenance Dashboard
Return to Top of this Page Return to Theo Todman's Philosophy Page Return to Theo Todman's Home Page