tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post2364218350811585372..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: The argument from circularity and singular existential statementsEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-82242385824212529342012-05-23T12:54:56.269+00:002012-05-23T12:54:56.269+00:00>>Trying to answer my own question..."t...>>Trying to answer my own question..."the sense of ‘Vallicella’" would be Vallicellaness, a haecceity?<br /><br />Something like that, but with added subtle parts.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-71266738891643820132012-05-23T12:06:12.071+00:002012-05-23T12:06:12.071+00:00Trying to answer my own question..."the sense...Trying to answer my own question..."the sense of ‘Vallicella’" would be Vallicellaness, a haecceity?<br /><br />So, that's where http://ocham.blogspot.com/2011/07/vallicella-against-singular-concepts.html fits in...Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-27726042545595944192012-05-23T11:37:25.422+00:002012-05-23T11:37:25.422+00:00>> ‘Vallicella exists’ means that the sense ...>> ‘Vallicella exists’ means that the sense of ‘Vallicella’ has a referent or instance. ‘An American philosopher exists’ means that the sense of ‘American philosopher’ has an instance.<br /><br />Is the instantiation in sentence one the same as the instantiation in sentence two?<br /><br />If so, are you treating particulars (e.g. Vallicella) as universals (i.e. Vallicella is an instance of Vallicellaness), or are you treating universals (e.g. American philosopher) as particulars (i.e. realism)? Or is this a loaded question, and there is some other possibility I'm missing?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.com