Quine e Tarski sul nominalismo
Paolo Mancuso
Abstract
Paolo Mancuso
Abstract
- Quine and Tarski were kindred philosophical spirits. They rejected the analytic/synthetic distinction and shared a strong distaste for modal notions. Moreover, they both had nominalistic leanings. In this article I trace the nominalistic engagement of these two giants of contemporary analytic philosophy. Using recently discovered material from the Quine archive at Harvard, I begin by describing Quine's engagement with nominalism up to 1940. I then summarize the impact of the 1940-1941 discussions on nominalism between Carnap, Quine and Tarski and mention their influence on Goodman. The third part of the article deals with Quine's allegiance to nominalism and his subsequent reluctant acceptance of Platonism. The fourth part focuses on Tarski's defence of nominalism in Amersfoort in 1953. In the conclusion, Quine's and Tarski's approaches to nominalism are compared with some contemporary nominalistic programs (Field, Hellman, etc.).
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
- Quine and Tarski were kindred philosophical spirits. They rejected the analytic/synthetic distinction and shared a strong distaste for modal notions. Moreover, they both had nominalistic leanings. In this article I trace the nominalistic engagement of these two giants of contemporary analytic philosophy. Using recently discovered material from the Quine archive at Harvard, I begin by describing Quine's engagement with nominalism up to 1940. I then summarize the impact of the 1940-1941 discussions on nominalism between Carnap, Quine and Tarski and mention their influence on Goodman. The third part of the article deals with Quine's allegiance to nominalism and his subsequent reluctant acceptance of Platonism. The fourth part focuses on Tarski's defence of nominalism in Amersfoort in 1953. In the conclusion, Quine's and Tarski's approaches to nominalism are compared with some contemporary nominalistic programs (Field, Hellman, etc.).
Key concepts: Nominalism, Quine, Philosophy, Epistemology, TRACE (psycholinguistics), Philosophy of language, Metaphysics, Platonism