parsons2 at fas.harvard.edu
Sat Sep 24 17:02:44 EDT 2005
At 6:10 PM +1000 9/23/05, A.P. Hazen wrote:
>[In response to John Corcoran's most recent posting.]
> Charles Parsons has written, somewhere, of the "obscure notion" of
>an OCCURRENCE. Put on hold any doubts you might have about the
>type/token distinction. (If you don't have any nervousness about
>THAT distinction, go read David Kaplan's "Words" ["Aristotelian
>Society Supplementary Volume" 1990, pp. 93-199], or maybe Peter
>Simons's "Token Resistance" ["Analysis" (the philosophy journal of
>that title, not the math or psychotherapy ones!) v. 42 (1992), pp.
>195-203]. But for the length of this posting, assume the type/token
I don't recall having written that. However, I was struck years ago
by a statement in Benson Mates' logic textbook, that the notion of
occurrence is "woolly". It's very likely that I have mentioned this
in conversation or lectures.
I have now located the passage. Mates writes,
Probably the confusion [about free and bound occurrences of variables
- CP] is further increased by the unclarity that surrounds the notion
of _occurrence_. Only reluctance to introduce additional complexity
prevents us from abandoning this woolly notion and defining instead a
ternary relation 'alpha is bound at the nth place in phi', where
'alpha' takes variables as values, 'phi' formulas, and 'n' positive
integers. Such a definition would obviate all talk about
'occurrences', but it is rather involved.
_Elementary Logic_, 2d ed., OUP 1972, p. 49.
What he suggests is, of course, not an explanation of the notion of
occurrence but a way of eliminating it, evidently provided that one
takes formal expressions as sequences.
More information about the FOM