[FOM] Quine and the Principle of Abstraction
Alex Blum
blumal at mail.biu.ac.il
Mon Sep 14 02:39:22 EDT 2009
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?
Alex Blum
More information about the FOM
mailing list