Appendix Quine's Objection to Quantified Modal Logic - Oxford Scholarship Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
The Nature of Necessity$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Alvin Plantinga

Print publication date: 1978

Print ISBN-13: 9780198244141

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0198244142.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 26 September 2016

(p.222) Appendix Quine's Objection to Quantified Modal Logic

(p.222) Appendix Quine's Objection to Quantified Modal Logic

Source:
The Nature of Necessity
Author(s):

Alvin Plantinga

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0198244142.005.0001

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.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .