Números, objetos y estructuras
Rodríguez Consuegra, Francisco
Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM
dor_id: 4115475
506.#.#.a: Público
590.#.#.d: Cada artículo es evaluado mediante una revisión ciega única
510.0.#.a: Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Revistes Cientifiques de Ciencies Socials Humanitais (CARHUS Plus); Latinoamericanas en Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades (CLASE); Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH PLUS); Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex); SCOPUS, Journal Storage (JSTOR); The Philosopher’s Index, Ulrich’s Periodical Directory
561.#.#.u: https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/
650.#.4.x: Artes y Humanidades
336.#.#.b: article
336.#.#.3: Artículo de Investigación
336.#.#.a: Artículo
351.#.#.6: https://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica
351.#.#.b: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía
351.#.#.a: Artículos
harvesting_group: RevistasUNAM
270.1.#.p: Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx
590.#.#.c: Open Journal Systems (OJS)
270.#.#.d: MX
270.1.#.d: México
590.#.#.b: Concentrador
883.#.#.u: https://revistas.unam.mx/catalogo/
883.#.#.a: Revistas UNAM
590.#.#.a: Coordinación de Difusión Cultural
883.#.#.1: https://www.publicaciones.unam.mx/
883.#.#.q: Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial
850.#.#.a: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
856.4.0.u: https://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/801/772
100.1.#.a: Rodríguez Consuegra, Francisco
524.#.#.a: Rodríguez Consuegra, Francisco (1991). Números, objetos y estructuras. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol. 23 Núm. 68, 1991; 7-86. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115475
245.1.0.a: Números, objetos y estructuras
502.#.#.c: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
561.1.#.a: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM
264.#.0.c: 1991
264.#.1.c: 2018-12-13
506.1.#.a: La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico alberto@filosoficas.unam.mx
884.#.#.k: https://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica/article/view/801
001.#.#.#: 034.oai:ojs2.132.248.184.97:article/801
041.#.7.h: spa
520.3.#.a: Introduction. This paper is principally a critical exposition of the celebrated article by Benacerraf, indicating briefly íts antecedents, emphasizing its accomplishments, problems and basic insufficiencies, followed by an evaluation of the main criticisms to which Benacerraf"s article has been subjected, as well as a study of the historical framework in which a new global criticism is meaningful. The paperends with the examination of a possible connection with the structuralist philosophy of mathematics, which is in part inspired by the work of Benacerraf. Mathematical reduction according to Benacerraf (sections 2 and 3). It is here shown that the fundamental "objective" antecedents to Benacerraf"s work are Quine, along with Parsons, and the nominalism of Goddard; and sorne important differences are also pointed out. Discussed is Benacerraf"s rejection of the identification of numbers and objects, and its substitution by progressions in the framework of the typically Quinean argument of set polymorphism, as well as his difficult theory of identity, all of which without a clearly relativist ontological contexto His reduction of numbers to positions in a progression is situated in the now old debate between the cardinal and the ordinal, and is a step in the direction of the nascent structuralism, although it lacks sufficient justification. Some criticisms [sections 4 and 5). An evaluative study is made of the criticisms that seem to me most accurate, or the most revealing of underlying problems. Reviewed are the most relevant among such criticisms in the literature: Steiner, Resnik, Maddy, Wright, and Hale along with others of the enormous quantity of articles discussing this topic that have appeared over the last twenty years, Common lines are traced out, and some possible defenses of Benaeerraf are indicated, although again the weaknesses of his position are pointed out, weaknesses stemming from its unresolved problems (the historieal framework, the ill-defined ontology, the nascent structuralism, etc.). Essential criticisms (section 6). Beginning with the problem of counting, the axis of Benaeerraf"s work, an historical excursion is presented, in which it is shown that the problem pointed out above (cardinal versus ordinal) can be seen as the center of the indicated difficulties. The theory of Dedekind-Peano is compared with that of Cantor, and the epistemological and constructive advantages of the latter are noted. It is shown how positions very similar to Benacerraf"s were already held by Cassirer and Weyl (without mentioning Berkeley!); meanwhile, the Cantorian approach of Couturat and RusseU is shown to be superior, at least from the point of view of a global coneeption. Finally, the eonneetion between eonstructions and polymorphism---a problem shared by logic, mathematics and physics---is pointed out. The structuralist tendency and platonism (section 7). The antecedents of the structuralism of Resnik and Shapiro are traced to Benacerraf himself ---and the historical trace is further extended back to the ordinalists, Bourbaki and Quine--- in the hope of shedding light on the basic problem: the supposed antithesis between terms and relations (already familiar in Bradley and Russell). Further, I suggest and examine a parallelism with the relativism of mathematical entities such as this appears after the limitations of (at least first order) axiomatization. The paper ends making a connection of the subject with the theory of categories, which, surprisingly, still has not been eonsidered by the strueturalist, despite the fact that it is quite clearly a natural extension of the structuralist point of view. [Traducción de Raúl Orayen y Mark Rollins]
773.1.#.t: Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol. 23 Núm. 68 (1991); 7-86
773.1.#.o: https://critica.filosoficas.unam.mx/index.php/critica
022.#.#.a: ISSN electrónico: 1870-4905; ISSN impreso: 0011-1503
310.#.#.a: Cuatrimestral
300.#.#.a: Páginas: 7-86
264.#.1.b: Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM
doi: https://doi.org/10.22201/iifs.18704905e.1991.801
handle: 00924943a47455d7
harvesting_date: 2023-08-23 17:00:00.0
856.#.0.q: application/pdf
file_creation_date: 2010-10-22 01:19:08.0
file_modification_date: 2010-10-27 16:42:11.0
file_creator: Claudia Chavez
file_name: 176b2be353ad7a2ad15644138026e966562975c2fd7a888cb8176c27191e40a1.pdf
file_pages_number: 80
file_format_version: application/pdf; version=1.5
file_size: 945458
245.1.0.b: Números, objetos y estructuras
last_modified: 2023-08-23 17:00:00
license_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es
license_type: by-nc-nd
Rodríguez Consuegra, Francisco
Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM, publicado en Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM
Rodríguez Consuegra, Francisco (1991). Números, objetos y estructuras. Crítica. Revista Hispanoamericana de Filosofía; Vol. 23 Núm. 68, 1991; 7-86. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/4115475