Frances -- Along with my view that there are no non-notional entities that most philosophers believe they are "referring to" when they say "qualities" and "properties", I take the position there are also no abstractions outside human minds. E.g. in addition to "good" never "inhering in" an object, "value" doesn't either. To look at a ton of gold and say, "That gold has value," is not to cite any entity that is in any way "in" that gold. Indeed, the alleged act of "having" is chimerical. "Having", possessing", "belonging", "owing" -- none of these alleged events ever take place, and certainly not in the mind-external world.
Further, there are no "relations" "out there", not even "mathematical" ones. There are no "meanings", "sets", "categories". Indeed, there are no "words". You may stipulatively construct a definition of, say, 'word', and then say, "Any mind-independent object -- e.g. a printed scription -- that meets these defining requirements IS a word." But printed scriptions, ink on paper, don't move. All the so-called "meeting" alluded to is a mental event. "But it is a word by definition!" Anyone who believes that way also believes there is a finite number of words in the mind-external "world". And to be consistent they have to believe that every time they "coin" a word by concocting a unique definition they have increased the number of "words in the world" by one. "No, no -- it has to have enough general usage to be in some dictionary." So each time a new dictionary is published, a large number of new entities pop into existence in the mind-external world. (The absurdities entailed are endless.) ************** You're invited to Hollywood's biggest party: Get Oscars updates, red carpet pics and more at Moviefone. (http://movies.aol.com/oscars-academy-awards?ncid=emlcntusmovi00000001)
