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
    Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment cannot corr... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment cannot correctly capture the logic of ontological commitment because they lack a 'reality' predicate.

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion '∃x Fx' conflates existential quantification over a domain with genuine metaphysical commitment to entities as real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Kit Fine's distinction between what exists and what is real shows that quantifier scope alone cannot track the graded ontological priority that metaphysics requires.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without a 'reality' predicate, quantifier accounts cannot represent Fine's insight that some existents (shadows, absences) lack full ontological standing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Meinongian logic demonstrates that a well-formed quantifier logic can range over non-existent objects like the golden mountain without committing to their reality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If quantifiers can bind variables ranging over admitted non-existents, then quantification alone is an insufficient guide to what a theory genuinely takes to be real.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'reality' predicate functions as the needed semantic marker distinguishing Meinong's 'there is' from the ontologically loaded 'there really exists'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Ontological commitment to the integers should be a stronger commitment than ontological commitment to the natural numbers, since the natural numbers are included within the integers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quantifier accounts associate commitment to Ks with the existential claim '∃x Kx', which makes commitment to natural numbers entail commitment to integers — reversing the correct ordering.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A 'reality' predicate is needed to correctly characterize ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageTruth & Knowledge

    Related

    A 'reality' predicate functions as the needed semantic marker distinguishing Mei...A 'reality' predicate is needed to correctly characterize ontological commitment...If quantifiers can bind variables ranging over admitted non-existents, then quan...Kit Fine's distinction between what exists and what is real shows that quantifie...
    +5 moreShow less
    Meinongian logic demonstrates that a well-formed quantifier logic can range over...Ontological commitment to the integers should be a stronger commitment than onto...Quantifier accounts associate commitment to Ks with the existential claim '∃x Kx...Quine's criterion '∃x Fx' conflates existential quantification over a domain wit...Without a 'reality' predicate, quantifier accounts cannot represent Fine's insig...

    Similar

    A 'reality' predicate is needed to correctly characterize ontological ...93%Quantifier accounts of ontological commitment fail to capture implicit...89%The truthmaker account of ontological commitment has a problem with ca...88%A principled account of ontological commitment can legitimately restri...87%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: ontological-commitment
    View source passageHide passage
    Once one accepts that a “reality” predicate is needed to characterize ontological commitment, a puzzle about the logic of ontological commitment admits of a natural solution. The puzzle is this (from Fine 2009). Because the natural numbers are included within the integers, an ontological commitment to the integers, it seems, should be a stronger commitment than a commitment to the natural numbers. But quantifier accounts of ontological commitment get this backwards: since commitment to Ks is ass
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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