David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robin Stenwall (2010). Causal Truthmaking. Metaphysica 11 (2):211-222.
David Wiggins (2003). Existence and Contingency: A Note. Philosophy 78 (4):483-494.
Marie Duží (2011). St. Anselm's Ontological Arguments. Polish Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):7-37.
Pierfrancesco Basile (2012). Russell on Spinoza's Substance Monism. Metaphysica 13 (1):27-41.
Jan Dejnozka (1990). The Ontological Foundation of Russell's Theory of Modality. Erkenntnis 32 (3):383 - 418.
David Efird (2010). Is Timothy Williamson a Necessary Existent? In Bob Hale & Aviv Hoffmann (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oup Oxford.
Peter Millican (2004). The One Fatal Flaw in Anselm's Argument. Mind 113 (451):437-476.
Added to index2009-04-10
Total downloads9 ( #157,954 of 1,101,681 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #292,019 of 1,101,681 )
How can I increase my downloads?