I begin by clarifying W.V. Quine's objection to quantified modal logic. I then consider responses from Jaako Hintikka and Arthur Smullyan. I demonstrate that both of them rely on distinguishing between proper and improper terms. Quine's reply to Hintikka and Smullyan is that their solution entails that quantified modal logic is committed to Aristotelian Essentialism. I conclude that Quine is right that quantified modal logic presupposes essentialism, but I also claim that this is not a reason to reject quantified modal logic.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.