This essay argues that propositions are made true by facts. A proposition is the sense expressed by a statement (sentence token used to make a truth claim). Facts are positive or negative constitutive properties of the domain of discourse (usually the actual world). The presence of horses is a positive constitutive property of the world; the absence of unicorns is a negative one. This notion of constitutive properties accords well with the Hume-Kant claim that existence is not a property of (...) any individual said to exist. While Frege held existence to be a property of concepts and Russell held it to be a property of propositional functions, our view sees existence as a property of a domain of discourse. To say that Native Dancer exists is simply to say that the world is characterized by the presence of Native Dancer; to say that Pegasus does not exist is to say the world is characterized by the absence of Pegasus. Such properties of presence and absence are facts. Facts make true propositions true; nothing makes false propositions false (they simply fail to be made true). Facts are not items in the world; they are (constitutive) properties of the world. (shrink)

I argue here that recent discussions of f. sommers' "rule for enforcing ambiguity" have been mistaken on one of two grounds. either they misrepresent the sense of the rule or they misunderstand its intent. the rule is neither a sense rule nor a categorial rule, but a 'translation' rule relating senses of terms to categories of individuals. rather than a test for term ambiguity the rule is a test for theory coherence. finally, i show that there are many possible ways (...) of applying the rule. (shrink)

I argue here that r. Van straaten's four modifications of f. Sommers' 'rule for enforcing ambiguity' are based upon a misunderstanding of the basis of the rule and a failure to see the spanning/predicability distinction. The effect is that none of van straaten's several counterexamples are telling against the rule. In place of van straaten's modifications I offer the following simple but important changes in the rule: the restriction of things to individuals and the reading of 'makes sense to predicate' (...) and similar phrases in terms of the spanning relation. (shrink)

Peter Geach has charged Aristotle with the sin of corrupting logic by initiating a process which led to the view that a sentence consists logically of just two names. This charge can only result from a clearly mistaken view of Aristotle's theory of logical syntax. Aristotle, unlike Geach, was careful to distinguish subjects from subject-terms and predicates from predicate-terms. He took both subjects and predicates as syntactical complexes. Geach, following Frege, holds a very different theory of logical syntax which takes (...) predicates, but not subjects, as syntactically complex. (shrink)

Peter Geach has charged Aristotle with the sin of corrupting logic by initiating a process which led to the view that a sentence consists logically of just two names. This charge can only result from a clearly mistaken view of Aristotle's theory of logical syntax. Aristotle, unlike Geach, was careful to distinguish subjects from subject-terms and predicates from predicate-terms. He took both subjects and predicates as syntactical complexes. Geach, following Frege, holds a very different theory of logical syntax which takes (...) predicates, but not subjects, as syntactically complex. (shrink)

Es läßt sich zeigen‚ daß Leibniz' These, singuläre Subjekte könnten in gleicher Weise entweder als partikulär oder universell verstanden werden ‚ eine Folgerung aus zwei anderen Leibnizschen Thesen ist: 1. daß die Wahrheit eines Satzes eine Sache der Enthaltensbeziehung zwischen der Denotation oder Bedeutung seines Subjekt-und Prädikatbegriffs ist, und 2. daß der Begriff des Individuums vollständig ist. Hieraus ergibt sich u. a.‚ daß die These der wilden Quantität verstanden werden kann als integraler Teil von Leibniz' allgemeinem logisch-metaphysischen Programm.