Advertisement

The Criterion of Ontological Commitment

  • Paul Gochet
Part of the Synthese Library book series (SYLI, volume 98)

Abstract

In ‘Ontological Commitment’ (1958), A. Church maintains that a precise formulation of a criterion of ontological commitment is a prior condition of any fruitful and rigorous discussion of the problem of universals: “…no discussion of an ontological question, in particular of the issue between nominalism and realism, can be regarded as intelligible unless it obeys a definite criterion of ontological commitment”.1

Keywords

Ontological Commitment Propositional Variable Existential Quantifier Free Logic Ontological Assumption 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Church, ‘Ontological Commitment’, Journal of Philosophy 55, (1958) 1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    W. V. O. Quine, From a Logical Point of View, Harper Torchbooks, 2nd edn., 1961, p. 103.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Vuillemin, La logique et le monde sensible, Flammarion, Paris, 1971, p. 43.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W. V. O. Quine, ‘Replies’, Synthese 19 (1968) 287; repr. in D. Davidson and J. Hintikka (eds.), Wordsand Objections, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1969, p. 315.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. H. Potter, ‘Negation, Names and Nothing’, Philosophical Studies, (1964) 52.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ch. Cheng and M. Resnik, ‘Ontic Commitment and the Empty Universe’, Journal of Philosophy LXII, (1965) 361.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. J. Warnock, ‘Metaphysics in Logic’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 1950–1951, repr. in A. Flew (ed.), Essays in Conceptual Analysis MacMillan, London, 1956, p. 87.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Warnock Ibid., p. 81.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Warnock Ibid., p. 87.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Warnock Ibid., p. 87.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Warnock Ibid., p. 88.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Warnock Ibid., p. 87.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Carnap, ‘Empiricism, Semantics and Ontology’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie (1950); repr. in Meaning and Necessity, 2nd edn., 1956, pp. 205–221.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. J. Warnock, op. cit., p. 84.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. M. Anderson and H. W. Johnstone, Natural Deduction: The Logical Basis of Axiom Systems, Wadsworth Publ. Co., Belmont, 1962, p. 241.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. I. Lewis and C. H. Langford, Symbolic Logic, Dover, New York, 1932; 2nd edn., 1959,p. 184.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. J. Ayer, The Foundations of Knowledge, MacMillan, London, 1940, p. 103.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ayer, Ibid., pp. 103–104.Google Scholar
  19. W. V. O. Quine, ‘Designation and Existence’, Journal of Philosophy 36, (1939); repr. in H. Feigl and W. Sellars (eds.), Readings in Philosophical Analysis, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, p. 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quine, Ibid., p. 48.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    J. Hintikka, ‘Existential Presuppositions and Existential Commitments’, Journal of Philosophy 56, (1959) 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Martin, ‘Existential Quantification and the Regimentation of Ordinary Language’, Mind 71, (1962) 528.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. J. Ayer, Thinking and Meaning, H. K. Lewis, London, 1947, p. 14.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    A. Church, ‘Ontological Commitment’, Journal of Philosophy 55, (1958) 1010–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    K. Lambert and T. Scharle, ‘A Translation Theorem for Two Systems of Free Logic’, Logique et Analyse 39–40, (1967) 339.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    C. Williamson, ‘Propositions and Abstract Propositions’ (1968) in N. Rescher (ed.), Studies in Logical Theory, Black well, Oxford, 1968, p. 143.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    A. N. Prior, ‘Oratio Obliqua’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volume 37, (1963) 118.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    R. Barcan Marcus, ‘Modalities and Intensional Languages’, in M. W. Wartofsky (ed.), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science Reidel, Dordrecht, 1963, pp. 91–93.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    W. V. O. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, Columbia University Press, New York, 1969, p. 104.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    W. V. O. Quine, ‘Reply to Professor Marcus’, Wartofsky, op. cit., repr. in Quine, The Ways of Paradox, Random House, New York, 1966, pp. 175–182.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    J. Berg, ‘What is a Proposition?’ Logique et Analyse 39–40, (1969) 283–292.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Gochet
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyState University of LiègeBelgium

Personalised recommendations