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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Is Timothy Williamson a Necessary Existent?David Efird - 2010 - In Bob Hale & Aviv Hoffmann (eds.), Modality: Metaphysics, Logic, and Epistemology. Oxford University Press.
The Ontological Foundation of Russell's Theory of Modality.Jan Dejnozka - 1990 - Erkenntnis 32 (3):383 - 418.
Added to index2009-04-10
Total downloads21 ( #234,659 of 2,158,821 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #354,157 of 2,158,821 )
How can I increase my downloads?