I consider different versions of a structuralist view of mathematical objects, according to which characteristic mathematical objects have no more of a ‘nature’ than is given by the basic relations of a structure in which they reside. My own version of such a view is non‐eliminative in the sense that it does not lead to a programme for eliminating reference to mathematical objects. I reply to criticisms of non‐eliminative structuralism recently advanced by Keränen and Hellman. In replying to the former, I rely on a distinction between ‘basic’ and ‘constructed’ structures. A conclusion is that ideas from the metaphysical tradition can be misleading when applied to the objects of modern mathematics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Charles D. Parsons (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: