Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Author Item Excerpt Meta data
Geach, Peter T.
Books on Amazon
Relations I 217
Relation/Geach: instead of class: solution for problems: a class cannot be an object (>paradoxes) relation: E.g. Knife/Plate: - E.g. Father-Son-Grandson: same relation, but no common object - (sets must not be treated as an object).
I 249
Relation/Geach: "higher" is logically the same relation to whether one means houses or sounds - but that does not mean that we only have to learn one relation.
I 294
Relation/GeachVsTwo-names-theory/TNT: for them, there is no relation > Ockham: therefore, there are only relative terms for it: as names of things: Problem: "Father of Solomon," "Son of Isaac," how would that be distinguished between "Father of Isaac", "Son of Solomon"? - Trinity: because he rejects relations in rebus, Ockham cannot do anything about the fact that it is contradictory that a thing is one and three at the same time. - Thomas AquinasVsOckham: Thomas can do this: for him "res" is transcendental (transversal): at the same time res absoluta and applicable to relations.
I 318f
Relation/relational propositions/Geach: false that such propositions could not be analyzed according to subject/predicate - as if no predication was made, but only a relation between A and B was shown. Then the two sentences a) and b) by Thomas could not be distinguished. - Geach: this shows that access to relations cannot be established via the word "between".

Gea I
P.T. Geach
Logic Matters Oxford 1972

> Counter arguments against Geach
> Counter arguments in relation to Relations

back to list view | > Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-03-29