|Nobody, some, philosophy: These expressions are not suitable for individualizing objects. The question is what status they have in the everyday language if they do not meet the requirements of the determinateness._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
Books on Amazon
Everyone/All/Nobody/Ontology/Existence/Non-existence/Hintikka: If we allow the domain of our quantifiers to be extended to non-existent objects, the most urgent question is:
Where are these non-existent objects?
E.g. Everyone's lover - for example, nobody's lover.
Both are obviously possible. But unlike Meinong's round square.
E.g. "the envy of all" - e.g. "which is envied by everyone".
N.B.: both are incompatible. The former must love the latter, but the latter cannot be loved by the former.
Every/all/nobody/Hintikka: it is no solution to claim that "everyone" or "nobody" go only via existent things. ((s) That is, we need to allow non-existent or possible objects (possibilia) here.
Meinong/Hintikka: gained the power of his arguments from the fact that we have to allow non-existent objects here. (Also: Terence Parsons).
Non-existence/non-existent objects/localization/possible worlds/Hintikka: thesis: every non-existent object is in its own world._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
Merrill B. Hintikka
The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989
J. Hintikka/M. B. Hintikka
Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996