|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. |
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. (See also Non-Existence/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. The note [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition.
Merrill B. Hintikka
Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996
Merrill B. Hintikka
The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989