more on this theme     |     more from this thinker

Single Idea 7698

[filed under theme 7. Existence / D. Theories of Reality / 11. Ontological Commitment / e. Ontological commitment problems ]

Full Idea

To apply Quine's criterion that to be is to be the value of a quantifier-bound variable, we must already know the values of bound variables, which is to say that we must already be in possession of a preferred existence domain.

Gist of Idea

If to be is to be the value of a variable, we must already know the values available

Source

comment on Willard Quine (On What There Is [1948], Ch.6) by Dale Jacquette - Ontology

Book Ref

Jacquette,Dale: 'Ontology' [Acumen 2002], p.177

A Reaction

[A comment on Idea 1610]. Very nice to accuse Quine, of all people, of circularity, given his attack on analytic-synthetic with the same strategy! The values will need to be known extra-lingistically, to avoid more circularity.

Related Idea

Idea 1610 To be is to be the value of a variable, which amounts to being in the range of reference of a pronoun [Quine]

The 29 ideas from 'On What There Is'

8455 Canonical notation needs quantification, variables and predicates, but not names [Quine, by Orenstein]
8456 Quine extended Russell's defining away of definite descriptions, to also define away names [Quine, by Orenstein]
10241 For Quine, there is only one way to exist [Quine, by Shapiro]
4064 The idea of a thing and the idea of existence are two sides of the same coin [Quine, by Crane]
19277 Quine rests existence on bound variables, because he thinks singular terms can be analysed away [Quine, by Hale]
12210 Quine's ontology is wrong; his question is scientific, and his answer is partly philosophical [Fine,K on Quine]
8459 Fictional quantification has no ontology, so we study ontology through scientific theories [Quine, by Orenstein]
16261 If commitment rests on first-order logic, we obviously lose the ontology concerning predication [Maudlin on Quine]
4443 Quine has argued that predicates do not have any ontological commitment [Quine, by Armstrong]
1619 There is an attempt to give a verificationist account of meaning, without the error of reducing everything to sensations [Dennett on Quine]
19159 Quine relates predicates to their objects, by being 'true of' them [Quine, by Davidson]
8856 Quine's indispensability argument said arguments for abstracta were a posteriori [Quine, by Yablo]
7698 If to be is to be the value of a variable, we must already know the values available [Jacquette on Quine]
15402 There is no entity called 'redness', and that some things are red is ultimate and irreducible [Quine]
1617 The word 'meaning' is only useful when talking about significance or about synonymy [Quine]
1609 I do not believe there is some abstract entity called a 'meaning' which we can 'have' [Quine]
1611 Names can be converted to descriptions, and Russell showed how to eliminate those [Quine]
1610 To be is to be the value of a variable, which amounts to being in the range of reference of a pronoun [Quine]
1615 Intuitionism says classes are invented, and abstract entities are constructed from specified ingredients [Quine]
1614 Conceptualism holds that there are universals but they are mind-made [Quine]
1612 Realism, conceptualism and nominalism in medieval universals reappear in maths as logicism, intuitionism and formalism [Quine]
1613 Logicists cheerfully accept reference to bound variables and all sorts of abstract entities [Quine]
1616 Formalism says maths is built of meaningless notations; these build into rules which have meaning [Quine]
1618 We study bound variables not to know reality, but to know what reality language asserts [Quine]
8496 What actually exists does not, of course, depend on language [Quine]
8497 An ontology is like a scientific theory; we accept the simplest scheme that fits disorderly experiences [Quine]
8498 Treating scattered sensations as single objects simplifies our understanding of experience [Quine]
18209 We can never translate our whole language of objects into phenomenalism [Quine]
12443 Can an unactualized possible have self-identity, and be distinct from other possibles? [Quine]