II 37
Non-existent objects/unrealized possibilities/HintikkaVsQuine/Hintikka: thesis: there are non-existent objects in the actual world. >
Possibilia.
HintikkaVsQuine: the philosophers who reject them have thought too strongly in syntactic paths.
Hintikka/thesis: one has to answer the question rather semantically (model-theoretically).
>
Model theory.
Fiction/Ryle: test: is the paraphrase valid?
>
Fictions.
Terence ParsonsVsRyle: Ryle's test fails in cases like e.g. "Mr. Pickwick is a fiction ".
HintikkaVsParsons: the relevance of the criterion is questionable at all.
>
Relevance.
II 38
Ontology/language/linguistically/HintikkaVsRyle: how should linguistic questions such as paraphrasability decide on the ontological status?
>
Ontology.
Solution/Hintikka: for the question whether there are non-existent objects: model theory.
E.g. Puccini's Tosca is about whether the soldiers have bullets in their rifle barrels.
N.B.: even if they have some, they would be just fictional!
Model Theory/Hintikka: the model theory provides a serious answer. ((s) "true in the model", means it is true in the story that the bullets are there).
HintikkaVsParsons: one should not argue too strongly syntactically, i.e. not merely ask what conclusions can be drawn and which cannot.
Acceptance/acceptability/inferences/Hintikka: asking for the acceptability of inferences and of language and intuitions is syntactic.
Singular Terms/ontological obligation/existence/Parsons: Parsons argues that the use of singular terms requires us to use an existential generalization. And thus also requires a referent. That is, it is a commitment to an inference.
HintikkaVsParsons.
>
Ontological commitment.
II 39
Non-existent objects/substance/world/Tractatus/Hintikka: the reason why Wittgenstein postulated his "objects" as the substance of the world, ((s) which cannot be increased or diminished), is that their existence cannot be expressed.) >
Existence statements.
II 103
Non-existence/not well-defined/HintikkaVsMontague: the Montague semantics does not allow the question of existence or non-existence to be meaningless because an individual is not well-defined in a world. ((s) Because Montague assumes the domain of individuals to be constant).
Individual Domain/solution/Hintikka: we have to allow that the individual domain is not constant. Problem:
Quantification/belief context/existence/truth/Hintikka: in the following example we must presuppose existence so that the proposition can be true:
(11) John is looking for a unicorn and Mary is looking for it too. ((a) the same unicorn).
((s) numbering sic, then continue with (8))
Range/quantifier/Hintikka: in the only natural reading of (11) one has to assume that the range of the implicit quantifier is such that "a unicorn" has a wider range than "searches/looks for".
((s) That is, that both are looking for the same unicorn). >
Objects of thought, >
Cob/Hob/Nob exmaple/Geach.
Problem: how can one know whether both subjects believe in the same individual?