Philosophy Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Everyone, all: “everyone” and “all” are colloquial forms, which are formalized in logic as quantifiers (universal quantifier). While "all" refers to a collective in general, "everyone" refers to individuals. E.g. everyone can win the lottery, but not all can win the lottery._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
J. Hintikka on Each/All/Every - Dictionary of Arguments
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._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Hintikka I Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka Investigating Wittgenstein German Edition: Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996 Hintikka II Jaakko Hintikka Merrill B. Hintikka The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989 |
||
> Counter arguments against Hintikka
> Counter arguments in relation to Each/All/Every
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2024-04-18