|Abstract||Russell held that ‘a exists’, where ‘a’ is a logically proper name, was necessarily true. By contrast his account of ‘The K exists’ allowed this to be contingent, since, on his Theory of Descriptions, it did not assert the existence of an individual, but merely the instantiation of some uniquely identifying properties. The present paper refines Russell’s distinction in several ways, first by providing what Russell merely gestured at, namely explicit, formally defined logically proper names. But following from this it is seen that Russell’s intention with regard to ‘The K exists’ is better expressed ‘A unique K exists’, leaving the former to be assimilated into the non-contingent category, through interpreting its subject phrase ‘The K’ nonattributively. The paper closes with an exhibition of similar discriminations that are available with higher-order subjects, such as properties, numbers, and facts.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Robin Stenwall (2010). Causal Truthmaking. Metaphysica 11 (2):211-222.
Peter Millican (2004). The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm's Argument. Mind 113 (451):437-476.
Jan Dejnozka (1990). The Ontological Foundation of Russell's Theory of Modality. Erkenntnis 32 (3):383 - 418.
Pierfrancesco Basile (2012). Russell on Spinoza's Substance Monism. Metaphysica 13 (1):27-41.
Marie Duží (2011). St. Anselm's Ontological Arguments. Polish Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):7-37.
David Wiggins (2003). Existence and Contingency: A Note. Philosophy 78 (4):483-494.
Added to index2009-04-10
Total downloads9 ( #114,063 of 549,087 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,317 of 549,087 )
How can I increase my downloads?