Ontological commitment

Philosophy Compass 2 (3):428–444 (2007)
I propose a way of thinking aboout content, and a related way of thinking about ontological commitment. (This is part of a series of four closely related papers. The other three are ‘On Specifying Truth-Conditions’, ‘An Actualist’s Guide to Quantifying In’ and ‘An Account of Possibility’.).
Keywords commitment   mathematics   platonism   nominalism   toread
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00080.x
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 24,470
External links
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
Kit Fine (1994). Essence and Modality. Philosophical Perspectives 8:1-16.

View all 32 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Katherine Ritchie (2015). Can Semantics Guide Ontology? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 94 (1):24-41.
Jeroen Smid (2015). The Ontological Parsimony of Mereology. Philosophical Studies 172 (12):3253-3271.

View all 14 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

243 ( #12,769 of 1,925,583 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

28 ( #15,841 of 1,925,583 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  is 1 thread in this forum
Cross-posted from http://mleseminar.wordpress.com/


Agustín Rayo - Ontological Commitment

Paper here; handout here.

We struggled to see the exact import of this paper. Cian worried that ‘ontological commitment’ was a philosophical technical term, and that even a really good account of it would still not tell us too much about what really exists. Perhaps the motivation is that Rayo wants to emphasize that the characterization of ontological commitment can be kept apart from Quine’s criterion. Quine’s criterion (to be is to be the value of a variable) has perhaps come to seem constitutive of ontological commitment for some philosophers, which leaves no room for non-Quinean accounts of the ontology of (say) mathematics.

I wondered about an attempt at explaining demand-talk in terms of necessitation. The obvious account, that the truth of P demands that the world contains F iff necessarily(p → Fs exist), ends up saying that asserting any true proposition commits us to the existence of all ne ... (read more)