more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Two ways to see 'all horses are animals' are as picking out all the horses (so that it is a 'horse-quantifier'), ..or as ranging over lots of things in addition to horses, with 'horses' then restricting the things to those that satisfy 'is a horse'.
Gist of Idea
'All horses' either picks out the horses, or the things which are horses
Source
Michael Jubien (Analyzing Modality [2007], 2)
Book Ref
'Oxford Studies in Metaphysics vol.3', ed/tr. Zimmerman,Dean W. [OUP 2007], p.107
A Reaction
Jubien says this gives you two different metaphysical views, of a world of horses etc., or a world of things which 'are horses'. I vote for the first one, as the second seems to invoke an implausible categorical property ('being a horse'). Cf Idea 11116.
Related Idea
Idea 11116 Being a physical object is our most fundamental category [Jubien]
| 8079 | Aristotelian logic has two quantifiers of the subject ('all' and 'some') [Aristotle, by Devlin] |
| 7742 | Frege reduced most quantifiers to 'everything' combined with 'not' [Frege, by McCullogh] |
| 7730 | Frege introduced quantifiers for generality [Frege, by Weiner] |
| 6061 | Existence is entirely expressed by the existential quantifier [Russell, by McGinn] |
| 6069 | 'Partial quantifier' would be a better name than 'existential quantifier', as no existence would be implied [McGinn] |
| 11115 | 'All horses' either picks out the horses, or the things which are horses [Jubien] |
| 13392 | Philosophers reduce complex English kind-quantifiers to the simplistic first-order quantifier [Jubien] |
| 13506 | The universal quantifier can't really mean 'all', because there is no universal set [Hart,WD] |
| 8312 | It is better if the existential quantifier refers to 'something', rather than a 'thing' which needs individuation [Lowe] |