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
    The quantifier '∃x' is neutral with respect to existence ... — Carmelics
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The correct first-order translation of 'dragons exist' is '∃x (Exists(x) ∧ Dragon(x))', not '∃x Dragon(x)'.

    The quantifier '∃x' is neutral with respect to existence on its own.

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

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

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Existential import requires an explicit existence predicate in addition to the q...The correct first-order translation of 'dragons exist' is '∃x (Exists(x) ∧ Drago...

    Similar

    The quantifier W counts as a logical constant if and only if the exist...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    79%
    If quantification must presuppose a category, then arguments relying o...77%
    The quantifier account is blind to T*'s commitment to Ks because T* ha...77%
    A non-logical quantifier W with a gerrymandered meaning can share the ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ontological-commitment
    View source passageHide passage
    According to the third objection to sufficiency, the quantifiers of first-order logic, properly understood, do not carry existential commitment; they are not “existentially loaded”. Indeed, calling ‘∃x’ the “existential quantifier” is a misnomer; it would be better to call it the “particular quantifier” in contrast with the “universal quantifier”. Ordinary language, on its face, supports the view that quantification need not be existentially loaded (see §4). For example, if we assert “some ficti

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective