Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Entailment accounts of ontological commitment handle impl... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Entailment accounts of ontological commitment handle implicit ontological commitment correctly, unlike quantifier accounts.

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment require that a thing exist as the value of a quantified variable in order for a sentence to be ontologically committed to that thing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some sentences carry implicit ontological commitments to entities that are not values of any quantified variable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If '∃x Human(x)' entails that humanity exists, then the sentence is ontologically committed to properties or universals even though no property or universal is a quantified variable value.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Entailment accounts generate commitment to whatever any sentence logically entails, including logical truths and set-theoretic consequences far beyond intended scope.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If '∃x Human(x)' commits us to humanity-as-universal, then by parity every sentence commits us to numbers, sets, and mereological sums via unintended logical entailments.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Quine's criterion succeeds precisely because it ties commitment to regimented theory, not to the uncontrolled inferential closure that entailment accounts permit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from '∃x Human(x)' to 'humanity exists' is valid only given a prior substantive metaphysical assumption that predicates denote universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Entailment accounts thus smuggle in contested metaphysical theses—such as Fregean concept-realism—disguising first-order ontological disputes as matters of mere logical consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rayo and Yablo's work on nominalistic paraphrase shows that apparent entailments to abstracta can be blocked without loss of content, undermining the account's claim to capture implicit commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Connections

    1 topic

    Truth & Knowledge4 linked

    Related

    Entailment accounts count a sentence as ontologically committed to whatever that...Entailment accounts generate commitment to whatever any sentence logically entai...Entailment accounts thus smuggle in contested metaphysical theses—such as Fregea...If '∃x Human(x)' commits us to humanity-as-universal, then by parity every sente...
    +7 moreShow less
    If '∃x Human(x)' entails that humanity exists, then the sentence is ontologicall...If '∃x Parent(x)' entails that children exist, then the sentence is ontologicall...Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment require that a thing exist as the ...Quine's criterion succeeds precisely because it ties commitment to regimented th...Rayo and Yablo's work on nominalistic paraphrase shows that apparent entailments...Some sentences carry implicit ontological commitments to entities that are not v...The inference from '∃x Human(x)' to 'humanity exists' is valid only given a prio...

    Similar

    Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment fail to capture implicit...94%The quantifier account of ontological commitment should not be require...93%The truthmaker account of ontological commitment has a problem with ca...90%The quantifier account of ontological commitment should be rejected by...90%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ontological-commitment
    View source passageHide passage
    The principle advantage of entailment accounts over quantifier accounts is that they have no problem with implicit ontological commitment. (Or, more exactly, since different entailment accounts will differ as to what counts as implicit content, entailment accounts have no problem with what counts as implicit ontological commitment by that account's own standards.) If ‘∃x Human(x)’ entails not only that humans exist, but that humanity exists, then it is ontologically committed to properties or un
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit