Please wait a minute...
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

ISSN 1673-3436

ISSN 1673-355X(Online)

CN 11-5743/B

Postal Subscription Code 80-983

Front. Philos. China    2016, Vol. 11 Issue (1) : 54-72    https://doi.org/10.3868/s030-005-016-0005-2
Orginal Article
Quine on Quantification and Existence
Tom Stoneham()
Department of Philosophy, University of York, YO10 5DD, UK
 Download: PDF(250 KB)  
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

Quine’s justly famous paper “On What There Is” introduced a criterion of ontological commitment which has been almost universally accepted by analytic philosophers ever since. In this paper I try to unpack some of the substantive and controversial philosophical commitments that are presupposed by this criterion. The aim is not to show that the criterion is incorrect, but merely that it is not as obvious as it is taken to be by many, and that we might have reasons to explore alternative ways of thinking about ontological commitments.

Keywords determinacy      existence      identity      logic      metaphysics      ontology      quantification      Quine     
Issue Date: 01 April 2016
 Cite this article:   
Tom Stoneham. Quine on Quantification and Existence[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2016, 11(1): 54-72.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/10.3868/s030-005-016-0005-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fpc/EN/Y2016/V11/I1/54
[1] FAN Dongping, ZHENG Ben. Diachronic Emergence and Its Characteristics from the Viewpoint of Complexity Science[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 653-674.
[2] Dmytro Mykhailov. The Phenomenological Roots of Technological Intentionality: A Postphenomenological Perspective[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(4): 612-635.
[3] Heath Williams. Analytic Phenomenology (or “What It Is Like”) vs. Husserlian Phenomenology[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 427-450.
[4] WANG Qingjie. Heidegger, Communal Being, and Politics[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(3): 395-408.
[5] MA Lin. Toward a Multi-Layered Chiasme-Focused Topology: A Reading of Merleau-Ponty’s Later Writings[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 242-269.
[6] Filippo Costantini. Structuring Reality: The Metaphysics of Harmony in Zhang Zai’s Zhengmeng Philosophical System[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 223-241.
[7] Thierry Lucas. The Logical Style of Confucius’ Analects [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(2): 167-197.
[8] JIA Lumeng, HUNG Ching. From Assessment to Design: What Is Really Needed in Technology Accompaniment to Achieve Subject Constitution?[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 73-92.
[9] NI Peimin. How Is the Kantian or Confucian Metaphysics Applicable to Human Dignity—Response to Wang Xiaowei[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2020, 15(1): 29-35.
[10] XU Difei. Hintikka’s Logical Revolution[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(4): 630-648.
[11] SUN Ning. Embodied Perception and the Schemed World: Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(3): 423-434.
[12] Thierry Meynard. What the “Failure” of Aristotelian Logic in Seventeenth Century China Teaches Us Today: A Case Study of the Mingli Tan [J]. Front. Philos. China, 2019, 14(2): 248-263.
[13] CHEN Bo. A Look Back at the Development of Logic in China since 1978[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(4): 662-682.
[14] Thalia Wheatley, Terence Horgan. Philosophy and Science Dialogue: Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 349-360.
[15] Terence Horgan. Seventy Years in Philosophy of Mind: An Overview, with Emphasis on the Issue of Mental Causation[J]. Front. Philos. China, 2018, 13(3): 300-331.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed