1. This document discusses existential import in categorical propositions. Existential import means that a proposition asserts the existence of objects in a class.
2. Traditionally, I and O propositions were thought to have existential import because they are derived from A and E propositions. However, this creates problems, as A and E propositions do not actually assert existence.
3. Modern logic rejects the idea that propositions always have existential import. A and E propositions can both be true even if the class is empty. This resolves issues with the traditional square of opposition.
1. This document discusses existential import in categorical propositions. Existential import means that a proposition asserts the existence of objects in a class.
2. Traditionally, I and O propositions were thought to have existential import because they are derived from A and E propositions. However, this creates problems, as A and E propositions do not actually assert existence.
3. Modern logic rejects the idea that propositions always have existential import. A and E propositions can both be true even if the class is empty. This resolves issues with the traditional square of opposition.
1. This document discusses existential import in categorical propositions. Existential import means that a proposition asserts the existence of objects in a class.
2. Traditionally, I and O propositions were thought to have existential import because they are derived from A and E propositions. However, this creates problems, as A and E propositions do not actually assert existence.
3. Modern logic rejects the idea that propositions always have existential import. A and E propositions can both be true even if the class is empty. This resolves issues with the traditional square of opposition.
1. This document discusses existential import in categorical propositions. Existential import means that a proposition asserts the existence of objects in a class.
2. Traditionally, I and O propositions were thought to have existential import because they are derived from A and E propositions. However, this creates problems, as A and E propositions do not actually assert existence.
3. Modern logic rejects the idea that propositions always have existential import. A and E propositions can both be true even if the class is empty. This resolves issues with the traditional square of opposition.
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 9
Existential Import
BITS Pilani Pilani Campus Dr. Anupam Yadav Boolean Interpretation of Categorical Propositions
Existential Import •Some propositions have existential import •A proposition is said to have existential import if it typically is uttered to asserted the existence of objects of some kind. I & O propositions do have EI. •‘Some soldiers are heroes’ & ‘Some dogs are not companions’ – The classes designated by their subject terms are not empty. •There is a problem. If I and O follow from A & E by subalternation they also have EI; for, a proposition that has EI cannot be derived from the one that does not have.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Continued
• To say that “some leprechauns wear little green hats” or
“Some frogs are not poisonous” follow from their respective universal propositions is to assert that they also have EI. • That is, this would permit us to infer that there really are leprechauns. • This creates a serious problem: • If A & O propositions which are contradictories do have EI, then both contradictories could be false. • “All inhabitants of Mars are blond” & “ Some inhabitants of Mars are not blond”. Saying that they have EI, they both can be false , if Mars has no inhabitants and hence cannot be contradictories.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Contd. • Something has gone wrong in the traditional square. If particulars are derived from the universals, then the square is not correct when it says that A & O are not contradictories. In that case square is also not correct to hold that I & O are subcontraries. • Can the square be rescued? Yes, on the notion of presupposition. • Did you spend the money you stole? can be answered properly, if it is presupposed that you stole money. • To rescue traditional square, we presuppose that all four propositions have EI, they are not empty. • In this way, we save all the relationships set forth in the square. • However, we have to pay heavy intellectual penalty for this blanket presupposition.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Contd.
There are 3 reasons not to go for this blanket presupposition.
1. If we presuppose that the class designated has members, we will never be able to formulate the proposition that denies that the class has members. For example, “No unicorns are creatures that exist”. 2. Our ordinary usage of language is not in complete accord with this blanket presupposition. “All” may preferably used to refer to empty classes. “All trespassers will be prosecuted” . Far from presupposing that the class has members, it is intended to ensure that the class remains empty. The statement can be true even if no one is ever prosecuted.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Contd.
On the other hand, consider “I” proposition, “Some
trespassers will be prosecuted’ . Unlike the word “all”, the word “some” is incompatible with the an empty subject class. The statement would be false, if there were no trespassers. 3. In science and other theoretical spheres we often wish to reason without making any presupposition about existence. Newton’s first law of motion asserts that certain things are true about bodies that are not acted on by any external forces. They remain at rest. The law may be true; a physicist may wish to defend it without wanting to presuppose that this is the case.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Contd.
• In modern logic, it is not assumed that the classes to which
categorical propositions refer to always have members. This Boolean interpretation has important logical consequences: • I & O have EI and in the absence of which they are false. But, universal propositions have no EI. Thus, ‘all unicorns have horns’ & ‘no unicorns have wings’ may both be true, even if there are no unicorns. • However, A & E propositions in Boolean interpretation can both be true and hence not contraries. “All unicorns have wings” & “No unicorns have wings”. Interpreted as “if-then” statements, A & E can indeed be true, if there are no unicorns.
BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus
Contd.
• Similarly, I & O Propositions which have EI, can both be false, if
the subject class is empty. So, they cannot be subcontraries.
• Subalternation is also not valid. Plainly, because I & O
propositions cannot be validly inferred from corresponding A & E that have no EI. • Only contradictory relations remain in force.
• Modern logic rejects the blanket presupposition. It is a mistake to
assume that a class has members if it is not asserted explicitly that it does. Any argument that relies on this mistaken assumption is said to commit the fallacy of existential assumption or existential fallacy.
