Reference no: EM133346708

Question 1.A. Quine considers a line of reasoning for the conclusion that Pegasus exists (Argument for Fictional & Mythical Entities 1. If Pegasus did not exist, then the name 'Pegasus' would not refer to anything. 2. If 'Pegasus' did not refer to anything, it would be meaningless to say that Pegasus does not exist. 3. It is not meaningless to say that Pegasus does not exist. 4. Therefore, Pegasus exists.). Discuss this argument-you don't need to write it formally but you should discuss the premises and their support. If you do write it out, be sure to explain the rationale for each premise.

Question 1. C. What is Quine's own view on the question of Pegasus' existence? On his view, where does the line of reasoning in part A above go wrong?

Question 2. C. Does Quine agree that an utterance like 'That car is red' is meaningful? If so, does he think it can be meaningful if there are no meanings? How? Discuss his answers to these questions in some detail.

Question 2.D. Why does Quine think that one who says 'Some cars are red' is committed to the existence of red cars, but not to redness? Do you agree or disagree with Quine on this issue? Defend your answer.

Question 3.B. Kripke argued that a true identity statement like "the first postmaster general of the USA is the inventor of bifocals" is contingent, but a true identity statement with proper names, like "Hesperus is Phosphorus" is necessary. Using the information in Part (rigid designator) above, discuss Kripke's reasoning for each of these conclusions.

Question 3.D. How does Kripke's view about proper names conflict with the "descriptivism" defended by Bertrand Russell? Which is better, as you see it?

Question 4.D. What are a thing's essential properties? Why did Kripke also think that statements about objects' essential properties could be necessary but not a priori? Use an example to illustrate your answer.