Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Substitutional Quantification: the substitutional quantification is concerned with the determination of whether linguistic expressions can be formed for a situation. E.g. "There is a true sentence that ...". In contrast, the referential quantification - the form of quantification normally used in predicate logic - tells us something about objects. E.g. "There is at least one object x with the property ..." or "For all objects x applies ...". The decisive difference between the two types of quantification is that, in the case of the possible replacement of a linguistic expression by another expression, a so-called substitution class must be assumed which cannot exist in the case of objects since the everyday subject area is not classified into classes is. E.g. you can replace a table by some box, but you cannot replace the word table by any available word. See also referential quantification, quantification, substitution, inference, implication, stronger/weaker, logic, systems, semantic rise.

_____________
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.

 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
I 171
Substitutional quantification/sQ/HintikkaVsSQ/HintikkaVsSubstitutional Quantification/Hintikka: substitutional quantification is a pseudo-paradise, at most of formal interest, there has never been a satisfactory explanation for it.
Description/Knowledge/Russell: Knowledge by description: E.g. we do not know Bismarck. We wish that the object itself is a constituent of our proposition, but this does not work here. We know, however, that there is an object called Bismarck (existence).
Russell: We also know about this Bismarck that he is a clever diplomat.
Solution/Russell: then we can describe the proposition we want to claim, namely, "B was a clever diplomat," where B is the object that is Bismarck. (> Logical form).
Logical Form/Hintikka:
(15) (Eb) (b = Bismarck & we judge that b was a clever diplomat)
"B": this variable has then actual objects (objects from the actual world) as values.
Russell/Hintikka: that shows that he has not chosen the solution (i).
However, on another occasion Russell says:
---
I 172
Description/Knowledge/Russell/Hintikka. Knowledge by description: here we know propositions about the "so-and-so" without knowing who or what so-and-so is.


_____________
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.

Hin I
Jaakko and Merrill B. Hintikka
The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic Dordrecht 1989

W I
J. Hintikka/M. B. Hintikka
Untersuchungen zu Wittgenstein Frankfurt 1996


> Counter arguments against Hintikka
> Counter arguments in relation to Substitutional Quantification



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-07-27