extensional definitions are terribly unsatisfactory
True enough, but it’s worth noting that what we have here (between a deontological theory and its ‘consequentialized’ doppelganger) is necessary co-extension. Less chordates and renates, more triangularity and trilaterality. And it’s philosophically controversial whether there can be distinct but necessarily co-extensive properties. (I think there can be; but I just thought this was worth flagging.)
Good point. If we do another survey (and it is about time) I’d like to know how people here stand on the existence of abstract objects (universals, types, etc.)
True enough, but it’s worth noting that what we have here (between a deontological theory and its ‘consequentialized’ doppelganger) is necessary co-extension. Less chordates and renates, more triangularity and trilaterality. And it’s philosophically controversial whether there can be distinct but necessarily co-extensive properties. (I think there can be; but I just thought this was worth flagging.)
Good point. If we do another survey (and it is about time) I’d like to know how people here stand on the existence of abstract objects (universals, types, etc.)
Abstract object exist in my mind. The end.
No they don’t. The end.