November 10, 2005

This is where I've been

Edward Halper's criticism and positive account of Barnes and Mignucci's Aristotle's philosophy of mathematics is premised on a misunderstanding of one of the fundamental principles of Aristotle's ontology: the being of accidents and abstracts (such as numbers) is metaphysically dependent on substances, not on finding some one substance. Numbers, in particular, are dependent on collections. Hence, Halper's criticism of Barnes and Mignucci fails, and his own positive account is incoherent.

Only, in more detail, and over 15 pages. I start working on the two 20 page papers next week. Whee!

2 comments:

Edward Halper said...

Just came across your note. Before you dismiss my interpretation, you might want to read the piece where I argue what you criticize. It appeared orginially in the BACAP Proceedings (1989) and was reprinted in my Form and Reason book.

Hope you did well on your paper.

Edward Halper

Edward Halper said...

Just came across your note. Before you dismiss my interpretation, you might want to read the piece where I argue what you criticize. It appeared orginially in the BACAP Proceedings (1989) and was reprinted in my Form and Reason book.

Hope you did well on your paper.

Edward Halper