Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Metaphysica

International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Together with Cumpa, Javier

Editorial Board Member: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

2 Issues per year


CiteScore 2016: 0.12

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.111
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.530

Online
ISSN
1874-6373
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Sider’s Third Realm

Jonah P. B. Goldwater
Published Online: 2014-02-01 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0007

Abstract

Sider (2011; Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press) argues it is not only predicates that carve reality at its joints, but expressions of any logical or grammatical category – including quantifiers, operators, and sentential connectives. Even so, he denies these expressions pick out entities in the world; instead, they only represent the world’s “structure”. I argue that this distinction is not viable, and that Sider’s ambitious programme requires an exotic ontology – and even a Fregean “third realm” – of logical entities.

Keywords: ontological commitment; joint-carving; logical realism; Sider

References

  • Armstrong, D. 2004. Truth and Truthmakers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Ayer, A. J. 1936. Language, Truth, and Logic, 2nd edn. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd.Google Scholar

  • Cameron, R. 2008. “Truthmakers and Ontological Commitment: Or How to Deal with Complex Objects and Mathematical Ontology Without Getting Into Trouble.” Philosophical Studies140:1–18.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Candlish, S. 2007. The Russell/Bradley Dispute and Its Significance for Twentieth-Century Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

  • Frege, G.. 1893. Grundgesetze Der Arithmetik, Vol. 1. Reprinted in Beaney, M. (ed.) (1997). The Frege Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Frege, G.. 1918. Thought, 325–45. Oxford: Reprinted in Beaney, M. (ed.) (1997).Google Scholar

  • Lewis, D.. 1983. New Work for a Theory of Universals. Reprinted in Lewis, D. (1999). Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Marek, J.. 2013. Alexius Meinong. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/meinong/.

  • Quine, W. V. O. 1948. “On What There Is.” Review of Metaphysics2(5):21–36. Reprinted in (1953). From A Logical Point of View, 1–15. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Quine, W. V. O. 1951. “Ontology and Ideology.” Philosophical Studies2:11–15.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Reicher, M. 2012. Nonexistent Objects. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/nonexistent-objects/.

  • Russell, B. 1903. The Principles of Mathematics. London: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar

  • Russell, B. 1905. “On Denoting.” Mind14:479–93.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Russell, B. 1918. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism. Peru, Illinois: Open Court Publishing (1985).Google Scholar

  • Russell, B. 1919. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Schaffer, J. 2008. “Truthmaker Commitments.” Philosophical Studies141:7–19.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Sider, T. 2011. Writing the Book of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Wittgenstein, L. 1921. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Translated by D. F. Pears and B. F. McGuiness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (1961).Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-01

Published in Print: 2014-04-01


See e.g. Marek (2013) and Reicher (2012) for more detailed overviews of Meinong’s position.

As parenthetically indicated, a Meinongian might distinguish ontological from “subsistential” commitment, i.e. between commitment to existence as opposed to being. For now, though, I’ll use “ontological commitment” to indicate commitment to any kind of reality whatever.

Thus, certain traditional debates – such as nominalism vs realism about universals – can be recast in linguistic or quasi-linguistic terms: e.g. do predicate terms refer, as substantive terms do? Are predicates names for universals? (Of course, Quine answers in the negative.)

Examples of this sort of talk abound. For instance, Sider writes that “In the case of logic… it’s plausible to think that there are joints in nature” (p. 222, original emphasis).

This is so even on Sider’s own terms. For Sider claims that meta-metaphysics is “just more metaphysics” (p. 82), and, moreover, that “S(S)” is true – that is, that structure is itself structural (p. 137). And surely a dispute over this claim is a dispute as to whether there is structure.

I take this to comport with the anti-Quinean doctrine of “truthmaker commitments”: roughly, that one is ontologically committed to every entity needed to make a sentence true, not only what it quantifies over. See Armstrong (2004), Cameron (2008), and Schaffer (2008) for criticism.

More generally, Sider defends “purity” – the doctrine that fundamental facts are not contaminated by anything nonfundamental (see esp. §§7.2–7.3).

Frege (1893, xvii), translated by, and reprinted in, Beaney (1997, 204–05).

See Frege (1918) for his more robust defence of the third realm.

Moreover, in this case “Pegasus does not exist” would be false – for if “Pegasus” means the subjective idea of Pegasus, and that idea exists (whenever it is thought), then Pegasus does indeed exist – contra the original statement.

This is not to say, however, that they would be false: as these propositions would not be at all, they could not have (or bear) any truth-value whatever.

Though Sider also accepts sets (ibid); whether this is already Platonism I leave for another day.

See Plato’s Phaedrus, 265d–6a.


Citation Information: Metaphysica, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0007.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston. Copyright Clearance Center

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in