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will not be published.

 
Hintikka I 103
Non-existence/not well-defined/HintikkaVsMontague: Montague's 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 in Montague the domain of individuals is assumed to be constant).
>Possible worlds, >Identity between worlds, >Individual domain,
>Identification, cf. >Counterparts, >Counterpart relation, >Counterpart theory.
Individual domain/solution/Hintikka: we have to allow that the individual domain is not constant. But there is a 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.

((s) the same unicorn).
Cf. >Thought objects, >Belief objects.
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 "looks for".
>Range, >Quantification, >Narrow/wide range.
((s) That is, that both are looking for unicorns.)
Problem: how can one know whether both subjects believe in the same individual?).
>Unicorn example.
I 103
Existence/W-Question/Unicorn/Hintikka: nevertheless the example (11) shows that the way of reading should not oblige us to accept the existence of unicorns.
Cf. >Ontological commitment.
Non-existence/epistemic context/intensional/belief/Hintikka: it is obviously possible that two people can look for the same thing, even if it does not exist.
Solution: We allow that well-defined individuals do not exist in some worlds. For this, only a slight modification is necessary.
Problem: with more complex sentences, all problems come back:
I 104
Example:

John does not know whether unicorns exist, yet he is looking for a unicorn because Mary is looking for it.

Problem: here John must be able to recognize a special unicorn. (Otherwise the sentence that uses "it" would not be true), although he is considering the possible non-existence.
>Anaphora, >Index Words, >Indexicality, >Identification.
World line/Hintikka: in order to extent the Montague semantics, we must allow more or less unnatural world lines.
>World lines, cf. >Four-dimensionalism.

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.