Abstract
A theory of relations is presented that provides a detailed account of the logical structure of relational complexes. The theory draws a sharp distinction between relational complexes and relational states. A salient difference is that relational complexes belong to exactly one relation, whereas relational states may be shared by different relations. Relational complexes are conceived as structured perspectives on states ‘out there’ in reality. It is argued that only relational complexes have occurrences of objects, and that different complexes of the same relation may correspond to the same state.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Armstrong, D. (1997). A world of states of affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, R. (1992). CASE*Method: entity relationship modelling. New York: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Bell, D. (1996). The formation of concepts and the structure of thoughts. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LVI, 583–596.
Bermúdez, J. L. (2001). Frege on thoughts and their structure. Logical Analysis and History of Philosophy, 4, 87–105.
Bolzano, B. (1975). Paradoxien des Unendlichen. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Fine, K. (1982). First-order modal theories III—facts. Synthese, 53, 43–122.
Fine, K. (2000). Neutral relations. The Philosophical Review, 109, 1–33.
Fine, K. (2007). Semantic relationism. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Frege, G. (1963). Compound thoughts. Trans. by R. H. Stoothoff. Mind, 72(285), pp. 1–17.
Frege, G. (1983). Logik in der Mathematik. In H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, & F. Kaulbach (Eds.), Nachgelassene Schriften (pp. 219–270). Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag.
Frege, G. (2000). Begriffsschrift. In J. van Heijenoort (Ed.), From Frege to Gödel: A Source Book in Mathematical Logic, 1879–1931 (pp. 5–82). New York: toExcel.
Frege, G. (2003). Der Gedanke—eine logische Untersuchung. In G. Patzig (Ed), Logische Untersuchungen (pp 35–62). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Frege, G. (2003). Logische Untersuchungen—Dritter Teil: Gedankengefüge. In G. Patzig (Ed.), Logische Untersuchungen (pp. 85–107). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.
Hodes, H. (1982). The composition of Fregean thoughts. Philosophical Studies, 41(2), 161–178.
Leo, J. (2008). Modeling relations. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 37, 353–385.
Leo, J. (2008). The identity of argument-places. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 1(3), 335–354.
Leo, J. (2010). Modeling occurrences of objects in relations. The Review of Symbolic Logic, 3(1), 145–174.
Lewis, D. (2002). On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Linsky, B. (2003). The metaphysics of logical atomism. In N. Griffin (Ed.) The Cambridge companion to Bertrand Russell (pp. 371–391). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacBride, F. (2005). The particular-universal distinction: a dogma of metaphysics? Mind, 114, 565–614.
Russell, B. (1956). The philosophy of logical atomism. In R. C. Marsh (Ed.), Logic and knowledge, essays 1901–1950 (pp. 175–281). London: George Allen & Unwin.
Russell, B. (1972). The principles of mathematics. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Russell, B. (1984). Theory of knowledge. In E. R. Eames (Ed.), Theory of knowledge, the 1913 manuscript. London: Allen and Unwin.
Russell, B. (2005). My philosophical development. Routledge, New York.
Simons, P. (1992). The old problem of complex and fact. In J. T. J. Srzednicki (Ed.), Philosophy and logic in central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski: Selected essays (pp. 319–338). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Thalheim, B. (2000). Entity-relationship modeling: Foundations of database technology. Berlin: Springer.
Wittgenstein, L. (1975). Philosophical remarks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Wittgenstein, L. (1984). Notebooks, 1914–1916. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Leo, J. Relational Complexes. J Philos Logic 42, 357–390 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9224-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-012-9224-8