more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
We would do much better to call 'some' the 'partial quantifier' (rather than the 'existential quantifier'), on analogy with the universal quantifier - as neither of them logically implies existence.
Gist of Idea
'Partial quantifier' would be a better name than 'existential quantifier', as no existence would be implied
Source
Colin McGinn (Logical Properties [2000], Ch.2)
Book Ref
McGinn,Colin: 'Logical Properties' [OUP 2003], p.35
A Reaction
Like McGinn's other suggestions in this chapter, this strikes me as a potentially huge clarification in linguistic analysis. I wait with interest to see whether the philosophical logicians take it up. I bet they don't.
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] |