Platonism

For this session, we will answer the title’s question with the short and sweet: John P. Burgess’s Why I Am Not a Nominalist, a broad overview against various forms of nominalism.

Burgess responds to nominalist attempts to dispense with abstract objects in mathematical and scientific discourse, challenging both instrumentalist and reconstructionist forms of nominalism, among other; arguing that they fail to provide a viable alternative to the standard use of mathematics in science. He maintans that nominalism, rather than Platonism, bears the real “burden of proof”. His critique adresses Goodman, Quine, and Field, among others.

For our first session of 2025, we will engage with Robin Jeshion’s Intuiting the Infinite. He defends Charles Parsons’ Kantian appeal to mathematical intuition to address the access problem of Platonism: If mathematical objects are abstract objects, how can we gain knowledge of them?

Jeshion argues that intuition plays a fundamental role in justifying our knowledge of the infinitude of natural numbers, responding to key criticisms about the cogency of arbitrary objects, vague representation, and the role of spatial and temporal structures in mathematical thought.