more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We could introduce an 'intentional quantifier' (Ix) which means 'some of the things we talk about..'; we could then say 'some of the things we talk about are F and exist' (Ix, x is F and x exists).
Gist of Idea
We need an Intentional Quantifier ("some of the things we talk about.."), so existence goes into the proposition
Source
Colin McGinn (Logical Properties [2000], Ch.2)
Book Ref
McGinn,Colin: 'Logical Properties' [OUP 2003], p.33
A Reaction
This immediately strikes me as a promising contribution to the analytical toolkit. McGinn is supporting his view that existence is a predicate, and so belongs inside the proposition, not outside.
| 15878 | Some quantifiers, such as 'any', rule out any notion of order within their range [Harré] |
| 10774 | There are at least five unorthodox quantifiers that could be used [Tharp] |
| 7806 | Boolos invented plural quantification [Boolos, by Benardete,JA] |
| 15534 | We could quantify over impossible objects - as bundles of properties [Lewis] |
| 15156 | The universal and existential quantifiers were chosen to suit mathematics [Soames] |
| 6068 | We need an Intentional Quantifier ("some of the things we talk about.."), so existence goes into the proposition [McGinn] |
| 15138 | Not all quantification is objectual or substitutional [Williamson] |
| 8711 | Intuitionists read the universal quantifier as "we have a procedure for checking every..." [Friend] |
| 18771 | Stop calling ∃ the 'existential' quantifier, read it as 'there is...', and range over all entities [Anderson,CA] |