[FOM] Quine and the Principle of Abstraction

Alex Blum blumal at mail.biu.ac.il
Thu Sep 17 03:42:47 EDT 2009

```There is no problem with the number of occurrences of the variable in
the substituted predicate,but there is a problem  in bringing in a
variable free in the substituted predicate which will be bound in the
substituted schema. An example from Quine, M o L. 3rd ed. pp152-3:
Substitution of 'Gx' for 'F' is improper in :
if Fy then
(Ex)Fx  (valid)
for it would yield:
If Gxy then
(Ex)Gxx (invalid)
Alex Blum

Chris Gray wrote:

>The predicate substituted for 'F' must be 'is not an element of' or 'is
>not an element of itself' and for the very reason that you site.  A
>predicate may have more occurrences of the arguments than follow the
>schematic letter it replaces.
>For instance, 'knows Jones and Smith plays squash with' giving:
>
>(Ey) (x) (x is an element of y iff (x knows Jones and Smith plays squash
>with x))
>
>Chris Gray
>
>Alex Blum wrote:
>
>
>>Quine seems to derive Russell's Paradox from:
>>
>>                         (Ey)(x)(x is an element of y iff Fx)
>>
>>by substituting the sentence 'x is not an element of' for 'F', to get
>>for 'Fx', 'x is not an element of x'. Methods of Logic. (Revised edition
>>'64 p.249, 3rd edition '72 p.253). But doesn't this violate the
>>restriction: "Variables free in the predicate must not be such as to be
>>captured by quantifiers in the schema into which the predicate is
>>substituted." Quine. M of L. 3rd ed., p.148?
>>
>>
>_______________________________________________
>FOM mailing list
>FOM at cs.nyu.edu
>http://www.cs.nyu.edu/mailman/listinfo/fom
>
>
>
>
>

--
Alex Blum,Department of Philosophy,Bar-Ilan University
Ramat-Gan 52900,Israel
Home: tel 972-3-5352386
fax:972-3-5352388
12 Rotem St.,Ramat-Gan 52644,Israel

```