Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 102:183 - 200 (2002)
Is second-order quantification legitimate? For Quine, it was pure non-sense, unless construed as first-order quantification in disguise, ranging over sets. Boolos rightly maintained that it could be interpreted in terms of plural quantification, but claimed that it then ranged over the same individuals as singular, first-order quantification. I protest that plural quantification ranges over what I call multiplicities. But what is a 'multiplicity'? And does this idea itself not fall prey to something like Frege's paradox?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
On Plural Reference and Elementary Set Theory.Helen Morris Cartwright - 1993 - Synthese 96 (2):201 - 254.
On Quantifying Into Predicate Position: Steps Towards a New (Tralist) Perspective.Crispin Wright - 2007 - In Mary Leng, Alexander Paseau & Michael D. Potter (eds.), Mathematical Knowledge. Oxford University Press. pp. 150--74.
'That'-Clauses and Non-Nominal Quantification.Tobias Rosefeldt - 2008 - Philosophical Studies 137 (3):301 - 333.
Indenumerability and Substitutional Quantification.Philip Hugly & Charles Sayward - 1982 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (4):358-366.
On the Infinite in Mereology with Plural Quantification.Massimiliano Carrara & Enrico Martino - 2010 - Review of Symbolic Logic 4 (1):54-62.
Beyond Plurals.Agustin Rayo - 2006 - In Agustín Rayo & Gabriel Uzquiano (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press. pp. 220--54.
Sets, Properties, and Unrestricted Quantification.Øystein Linnebo - 2006 - In Gabriel Uzquiano & Agustin Rayo (eds.), Absolute Generality. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads27 ( #189,234 of 2,169,136 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,573 of 2,169,136 )
How can I increase my downloads?