Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
II 40
Everyone/all/none/ontology/existence/non-existence/Hintikka: if we allow that the domain of our quantifiers is also extended to non-existent objects, the most urgent question is:
Where are these non-existent objects?
E.g. everyone's lover - e.g. no one's lover.
Both are obviously possible. But unlike Meinong's round square.
E.g. "the envy of all" - e.g. "the one who is envied by everyone".
N.B.: both are incompatible. The former must love the latter, but the latter cannot be loved by the first.
Everyone/all/nobody/Hintikka: it is not a solution here to claim that "everyone" or "nobody" is only possible with existent objects. ((s) That is, we must allow here non-existent or possible objects (possibilia).)
Meinong/Hintikka: Meinong gains the power of his arguments from the fact that we have to allow non-existent objects here. (Also see Non-Existence/Terence Parsons).
Non-existence/non-existent objects/localization/possible worlds/Hintikka: thesis: any non-existent object is in its own world.
II 106
Quantification/quantifier/ambiguity/any/HintikkaVsMontague: on the whole, the Montague semantics shows how ambiguity arises through the interplay of quantifiers and intensional expressions. E.g.
(12) A woman loves every man.
(13) John is looking for a dog.
HintikkaVsMontague: Montague explains only why certain expressions can be ambiguous, but not which ones they actually are. He generally predicts too many ambiguities. For he is not concerned with the grammatical principles, which often resolve ambiguities with quantifiers.
Domain/Hintikka: the domain determines the logical order.
Quantifier/quantification/every/he/Montague/Hintikka: e.g.
(14) If he makes an effort, he will be happy.
(15) If everyone makes an effort, he will be happy.
Problem: in English, "if" has precedence with respect to "everyone" so that "everyone" in (15) can not precede the "he" as a pronoun ("pronominalize").
II 107
HintikkaVsMontague: so we need additional rules for the order of application of the rules.
>Universal Quantification, >Existential quantification, >Domain, >Individuation, >Identification, >Reference.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.