Troubles for the Received View

  • Francesco Berto
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 356)


As outlined in the Prologue, showing how the conception of existence opposed to Parmenideanism can be good and useful may be more fruitful than just criticizing the received view. However, the received view has its own difficulties, the most notable of which I shall list in this chapter, in no specific order. Some problems will turn out to be more compelling than others. Taken collectively, though, they should have enough weight to move the dialectical situation to the point at which investigating the alternative becomes a promising idea. This will happen in the following parts of the book.


Intentional State Definite Description Individual Concept Receive View Individual Essence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Adams R.M. [1979], “Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity”, Journal of Philosophy, 76, pp. 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes J. [1982], The Presocratic Philosophers, Rev. Ed., Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  3. Braun D. [1993], “Empty Names”, Noûs, 27, pp. 449–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess J., Rosen G. [1997], A Subject With No Object, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  5. Carrara M., Varzi A.C. [2001], “Ontological Commitment and Reconstructivism”, Erkenntnis, 55, pp. 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casati R., Varzi A.C. [1994], Holes and Other Superficialities, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  7. Donnellan K. [1974], “Speaking of Nothing”, Philosophical Review, 83, pp. 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans G. [1982], The Varieties of Reference, ed. by John McDowell, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  9. Fine K. [1982], “The Problem of Non-Existents, I: Internalism”, Topoi, 1, pp. 97–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fitting M, Mendelsohn R.L. [1998], First-Order Modal Logic, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Inwagen P. van [1977], “Creatures of Fiction”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 14, pp. 299–308.Google Scholar
  12. Kaplan D. [1975], “How to Russell a Frege-Church”, Journal of Philosophy, 72, pp. 716–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kripke S. [1972], Naming and Necessity, in Davidson and Harman [1972] (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 253–355 and 762–9, 2nd, expanded ed., Blackwell, Oxford 1980.Google Scholar
  14. Kroon F. [2000], “‘Disavowal Through Commitment’ Theories of Negative Existentials”, in Everett and Hofweber [2000] (eds.), Empty Names, Fiction, and the Puzzles of Non-Existence, CSLI, Stanford, pp. 95–116.Google Scholar
  15. McGinn C. [2000], Logical Properties. Identity, Existence, Predication, Necessity, Truth, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  16. Meyer R., Lambert K. [1968], “Universally Free Logic and Standard Quantification Theory”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33, pp. 8–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Miller B. [1975], “In Defence of the Predicate ‘Exists’”, Mind, 84, pp. 338–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Miller B. [2002], “Existence”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, CSLI, Stanford, Ca., Scholar
  19. Moltmann F. [2009], “The Semantics of Existence”, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
  20. Montague [1973], “The Proper Treatment of Quantification in English”, in Hintikka et al. (eds.), Approaches to Natural Language. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 242–70.Google Scholar
  21. Plantinga A. [1974], The Nature of Necessity, Oxford U.P., London.Google Scholar
  22. Priest G. [2005], Towards non-Being. The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Priest G. [2007], “Not to Be”, unpublished MS.Google Scholar
  24. Recanati F. [1993], Direct Reference, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  25. Sainsbury M. [2010], Fiction and Fictionalism, Routledge, London & New York.Google Scholar
  26. Salmon N. [1981], Reference and Essence, Princeton U.P., Princeton.Google Scholar
  27. Salmon N. [1987], “Existence”, Philosophical Perspectives, 1, pp. 49–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Searle J. [1958], “Proper Names”, Mind, 67, pp. 166–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sellars W. [1952], “Particulars”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 13, pp.184–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Soames S. [2002], Beyond Rigidity, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  31. Strawson P.F. [1950], “On Referring”, Mind, pp. 320–44.Google Scholar
  32. Strawson P.F. [1967], “Is Existence Never a Predicate?”, Critica, 1, pp. 5–15.Google Scholar
  33. Thomason R. [1990], “Accomodation, Meaning, and Implicature: Interdisciplinary Foundations for Pragmatics”, In Cohen, Morgan, and Pollack [1990] (eds.), Intentions in Communication, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 325–63.Google Scholar
  34. Varzi A.C. [2001], Parole, oggetti, eventi e altri argomenti di metafisica, Carocci, Rome.Google Scholar
  35. Williams C.J.F. [1981], What Is Existence?, Oxford U.P., Oxford.Google Scholar
  36. Wittgenstein L. [1921], Logisch-philosophische Abhandlung, “Annalen der Naturphilosophie”, 14, tr. Tractatus logico-philosophicus, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1922.Google Scholar
  37. Woods J. [1974], The Logic of Fiction: a Philosophical Sounding of Deviant Logic, Mouton, The Hague.Google Scholar
  38. Zalta E. [1988], Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francesco Berto
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Philosophy and Northern Institute of PhilosophyUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK

Personalised recommendations