13 «a Three Grades of Modal Involvement ‘There are several costly interrelated operator, called modal operator, wish are eacactarati f wal lg, Phare ar tho operators of neczsity, porbity, impoorbity, now-necersiy, Alo there are the Bary operntony er connectives, of etic, implication aud srt equivalence Tes various operators are fully definable in terms of ono another. Thus impossibility ie neceatity of the negation; possiblity and non-novesity ae the negations of impossibility and neeeity; and striotSmplienion fd alectequivalenoo are necessity of the material conditional ‘nd Bicnditioal. In philosophical examination of modal logic We muy therefore conveniantly Init ouslves for dhe most park to a single medal operator, that of nacasy. Whstever may be sid about noeeity mey be tld alo, with easy and obvious sdjusinents, about the ther modes, ‘Thor sve three dierent deyros to which we may allow loge or eemaatcs, to embraoe tho idea of nowy. The fe ot least dogree of acceptance Is this: nacearty i exposed by somantical predicate sttrbutable to statnents se notational forme—ende attachable to nasnet of statements, We mite, rom the rouge of he XIEh Internal Coron of Pia, rami Votan Ie (Azar Nar ond Aline Ge ® Nee'@> 8, ® ‘Nec (Burm ores), ® [Nee ‘Napoleon esesped from Elta’, ‘in oach ene attaching the prodicte ‘Ne’ to » noun a singul term, whichis namo ofthe statement which i eiemed t bo necesary (or neeesarly te). Of the above example, (1) and (2) would precumubly be regarded oe true and (8) a8 false; fr the neeesity eoxcerned in medal lgi i generally conetved to ‘be ofa logical ora prin ant ‘A seoond and more east degree in which the notion of noocaty many be alte ein the frm of 4 aatemant operator Here we have no longer a prodiests, attaching to names of ftatemente sein (1)=(3), bub t loll operator ‘ee, whieh s faces to statements themeelver, n the manne of the nogstion gn. Under this usage, (1) and (8) would be rendered rather as: ® neo (9> 8), 6 ‘ee (Napatean cape from Fibs), sand (2) would be rendered by prefiing ‘oe’ to Storm's actutt ttorem Tater than to its name, ‘Thor ‘whwneas ‘Nec is a predate or verb, Hn neceary’, which attaches toa own to frm 4 statment, “noe” ie rather an adverb, ‘cea, which uaches to eatoment to form a statement, ually the third and gravest degra 's eqresion of necesity| by a seatence operator This san extension ofthe eeoond deere, ad goet beyond it in allowing the ltachment of se! nat oaly #9 Statements but alto to open semtenoes, uch ne ‘x > 8 prepara tory to theultimate sttacimen of quale © () me (2 > 8), o 2) neo (2 > 8), ® (le = 9.3 noe (> BI ‘The example (8) would doubts berated a8 fake, and perhaps (2) and (8) as true. thal be eongerned in thie paper to bring out the logieal and hilsophielsignifennoe of thee tive degree of acoptanse of necenty device,18 The Ways of Parade 1 “al an srurense of singular tenn in statement purely referents (Preps: gerade), il, roughly speaking te tem Server in tat patsle coment inly to reer bjt Ocrureen within question ae tot ge the teanena ® “Ge? conan i eter (10) "9 > 6 ental jut thre ehratrs sy things th ata Co te umber 8 ge rerio fr vforentaecarence is rbueiiy of Ident ‘Since * * ay Tay = Gir, w the amber of planets = whatever trv of Cicer is uu acta of Tuy there being xe andthe sae) aad whatover er a ito the mune of plant It by puting Tul for “Cer oF the wamber of planet for in rth eg, (0) (0), we some out with cht: ay "Tully? contains eters (04) “the numberof planets > 5 ont just hres characters, we may be sure thatthe position on which the eubstivtion war tnade wae not purely referential, (@) must nt be eonused with as) (Gee basa siltter ain, Which dee say something about the man Cicero, and—uaike (2) ermine true whan the name Ciceo'is supplanted by "Tully Talking s int fram Issel” we may spec of & context se referential opaque whea, by putting statement 4 into that fantent we eet cuss a purely referential accurreses in to be ‘ot purely seferenial ie he whole context, Ing, the context “1. eoutsins jst the caractars epi ears mn is referential opaque; for, the occurrence of "in '9> 8? ie ely referential bt the aesrence of in (10) ie nok Biel, context i relerentally opaque if it ean render a referent ‘vourengenon-teferet, ‘Quotation is the relerentilly opaque context per exellenee. Intuitively, what ceaurs inside a referentially opaque context ray be leoke! upon as an ortogzaphicacedent, witout logia atu, ike the oowarrence of "eat in ‘atl’. The quotations eontext 9 > 8°” of the statement ‘> 8 hao, parheps, unlike the conlent ‘cattle’ of "at, w deceptively eyremasie sir whieh tempi us to think of its parte ae somehow logically germane Insofar as this temptation exist, itis salutary to paraphrase ‘quotations by the following expedient, We ray adopt aazaze for ech of our leery and other characters, end Tae "to exe pres oeatenstion Then, istend of naming a otatinal form ly putting tht notational form itself body batwoen quotation rr, wean name i by spalling it. Eig, since‘ emu, “is ‘cull, abd je my the word ‘pe’ ieuopalon” nu, Siar the staiement'@ > 8 is nrg if we adopt Une leters‘g and ‘ot nase ofthe eharectere,">', and 5. "The example (10) can thn be tranerbed co) ef contains just Uv characters, Here thee is no xon-rferntaloreurence ofthe numeral ‘for there is no occurence of al; and har there i 20 referentaly fpacue containment of one statement by another, becsure the {Sa contined statement e all. Perapesing (10) into (10), «0 fe to got id altogotter of the opanuely conve! statement 'B > 8 elke paraphrasing eat into ‘ine’ 20 ae toi i of the merely orthographic coeurrence of tho term ‘cal. Neither Pwraphiuat is mandatory, but both are bell when the iefor tin oourrenes draw unde attention ‘An oourrence of statement a a pert of a Jonger statement x call truthfunctonal if, whenever we supplant the conained ftatement by another statment having the se tuth value the ontining satemen, remains unchanged in trath value, Nato- rally one, would not expect oreuzencet of tatements within Teferentnlly opaque sonterte, such az quotations, Zo bo teuth- Fanetioal. ig, the teu (10) becomes fale when the contained statement “0 >is supplanted by soother, ‘Napoleon eeapedaoe The Ways of Parades from Elbe, whith hus th eame truth value as ‘9. Agsin the ‘uth (1) i carried, ky that sume sbstittion, into the fleehood 2). One might not expect ooeurences of daterents within fatements to be tath-fanetional, in general, even when the contests are aot referetilly opsaue; certainly not when the context ae reerentalyopacue In mathexutice logis, however «policy of extensionalty ix idely espoused: poiey of admitting statements within tate. ments trut-functionally only (apart of cures from such con texts as quotation, whch are referential opaque). Note thatthe ‘ecnantialpreivate ‘Noe’ as of (1)-(2) is tecoelabl with thie Paliey of extensioalty, since whatever breach of entensonslity it prima facie involves i shared by examplee like (10) and atulbutable to the relerentil opselty of quotation, We ea always amit to the spalling expen, tus rewriting (2) an Ne 00. (20, ike (16) nd indeed (2) sed unlike (2) asd (2), contains ‘bo component statement but only a uate of tema, ‘Tha sistemeat operat ne’, on the ether hand, o premed= {sted departare from extensionlity, The onurrnce of the truth '9> Bim (4) ie non-truth-funetiona, sine by eaplaatng it by dierent truth we ean turn the true content (4) into falsehood suth 2 (5) Such oonurrences, moreover, are nt locked upon as sonchow spurious or irrelevant to logieal structure, tke secre ences in quotation or like ‘eat’ in eat. On the contrary, the ‘modal log pied in (4) i usualy put forward a eneective of extensionsey, « needed eupplementetion of an ethernise limpoverised lg. TeuthTunetionsloceurrenee is by uo eens the rule in ordinary language, ae witnees oceurreaces of ste. munis governed by "Deoaue, thinks tha iss thet a8 ‘well as ‘necessarily’, Moda logicans, adopting ‘oe, have seen ‘0 reason to sappoe that an adequate logic aght adhere to « policy of extensontity Bu forall the willingness of mal logicians to flout the Bolicy of extensioalty, is there zelly any diference—on the score of extensionity—between thet statement operator ‘ace and the exteasonally- quits adiinible eemeatia! predicate ‘Neo? The Iter was excusable, within a polly of extensional: ity, by cing the referential opacity of quotation, But te tatenctoperstr ‘eis Hkeviteexstbl, within «poi of ‘enfenaiy,byctng ths retrial pay ofc! teal To Sn deter! acy of nes we be only to ot tht (0 Qe (a) arotaeand yt ini fae: os) nee (the number of planets > 5), Pe daemet pie tv earn caret ce ar ey i thc el hee Recreate eee a ean cen a ey iaihay Sry pret dates, bns tse ab (8 arf eam beer ape Bimalgense her one tase reece aimee ieee ee neato ial ser Aaa ts, by the above considerations, lepally equivalent to‘. Than, Shoe ‘Fp! ie tue end logial equvalnts are interchanges ‘within this wl be true aa) Rule = 4.9) awea The Ways of Parador Since‘ and“? ae alle ia truth value the cams (0 = 4p) and £(@ = Ag) are bath «8 or bath 4; m0 co) fem Ap) = He = Ag) ‘Since the contest represented by “not referential opaque, the fccurrence of ‘Xz A)" in (10) itm ply referent eee ence end hence subst tothe mbetttiity of ienty wo fen (G9) by (20) we ean concade that Fille = Ag) = dl ‘Thones ln ture, hy the lpia equivalence of ‘ele = A.) = (of, we ondlde that Fo) ‘The above argument cannot be evaded by denying (20), as Tong asthe notation in (20) i construed, es usual, a eferrng to clases, For classe, propery eoealed ae ono tod the sao i thelr members ae the sazae—regardlens of whether that samen be & matter of logieal proof ar of hstviea! acident, But the fngument coud be contested by one who doce not ndmit clase ames a( Te could azo be entered by one who, though rising Such clase ‘names, does not ate a final eriterion of Feferential occurence in the sastintiity of identity, es applied to constant singular lems, These pointe wil ome up, perforce, ‘when wo turn to noe’ atasentonee operator under quantisestion Meanwhile the above argumont dooe save to show that the poliey of extensionality hse more beckind it than ite abvious Simpiiity an concenienes, and that any real departare from the pulley (atleast where logos oqiivalente remain interchange fble) must invelve revisions othe loge of singular terms ‘The sipler earlier argument fr the oferatil opacity ofthe stalament operstor ‘ue’, vin, cbservation of the tthe (4) and (12) and the falachood (18), could Hkawioe be contertd by one ‘who slither repulistee constant singular terran or questions the ‘citron of referential opanty which involves them. Short of ‘opting ‘ed’ a8 a fulledged tontence operator, howere 0 uch searching revisions of olamieal mathematical Tosi are required, We tan keep to 0 claseal tery of claster and Singular tame, and even toa poliey of extnsonality. We Bave ‘nly to recogit, in the statement opeestor ‘ea reerentially ‘opaque contest comparable tothe thoroughly leginste ua very ‘eonvenient context af quotation. We an even Tole upon (4) etd (6) allpial renderings of (1) and Something very much tothe purpose of the serantial pred ate ‘Noo is rpuletly neodd inthe theory of proot. Whea, ex, ‘re apeak ofthe completeness ofa dadutive ystem of quantifn tion theory, we have br mind some eonoepe of vabiiey as norm vith which to compare the ela of cbtanable theorans. Tho ‘oton of valdty in eve contents isnot identifable with truth. ‘Ate etatement ie nos valid statement of qusntifiation tory tumlesa net only ie but all other statoments similar to itn ‘quautiSeational structure are tre, Definition of auch a notin of “aleity presente no problem, and the Importance of the notion for proot theory is incontestable ‘A coupicuous derivative of the notion of quantiationt! veldity & that of quantiseational implistion. One statement {quantidestonaly Smpios another the mated eondtionl ompowed of the wo stalemonte is valid for quantification theory "This reference to quanintion theory is only istrative ‘There are parallels for trth-funetion theory: » statement valid for trathfuoeton theory ft and all statment ike iin lrith-funetionastryture are tr2, and ope statement trath- Tuneionlly ines snother ifthe material editions formed of the two statement valid fr tuth-fuetion theory. ‘And there are patil, gai, for loge taken ae 8 whole: @ statement ix logially veld if Had all statements tke it ia Toglal struccre are tue, and one sttement lowell implies ‘other if the toaeral conditional formed ofthe two etatemants 5s logically vale ‘Modal lgie reseved special impetus years ago from a confueed reading of", the material Sif-thea’ es imple’ confusion of the atrial conditional with the tlation of izplction* Prop fig theres "3" of -thn' connctsetatements impli is a ‘art which eonneats names of tatments and thus express arela~ tion of the named statement, Carcessis over the dtintian of tse and mention having allowed thie intrusion of implioy as a reading af, the protos thereupon arose that‘ inita material ens wat too wee todo justin to ple’, which oanotee sme “Notably ie Waite and Ral108 ‘The Woys of Parades thing ke loge impiseton. Accordingly an effort was mad to repair the dscrepancy by introducing a mproved enbtite for ‘Sy, waiten 3" and alled seit implistion * The lata aoe {© distinguish uso from mention persed; 40 “2, though zead “imple” and motivated bythe coanotations ofthe word impli’, fonction actualy not as a vesb buts a satamenteonnssive, & such strangthenedf-en' Finally, in recognition ofthe fect that logial implication is valiity ofthe matealoonitonal, a validity ‘operator ‘bee’ was adopted to implement the definition op 3 sh'ne0 (p> g)-Binoe "hd been let atthe level of statement Connective, ‘be’ in turn vas of eoure rendered ae aa operntor ‘ryt atlachable to taternento—mbereae fs valid propery, isa ‘or attachable toa name of «aatement and exprotng an We De ofthe statement nad Tnany event, th se of ne’ a statement operator is easily con- vera into use of "Nov a somantial predicate. We have merely to supply quotation marke, thus eweting (4 aad (9) a8 (2) and (@) The tzong ifthe’, can eerependingy be rte to « ‘elon of inpoaton popetiys-aled, Whe® had bee: (21) he witnos od. the witnes tad V the owner is abe, explained as (22) nso (the wits ied. the witnessed the ome isinbl), Desi es “the witncs Hat? implies the witnen lied V the ower sable’ explained a oo ‘Nee ‘the witness HD. the witnessed the owe ae! ‘Typically, in moda loge, laws aro expremed with help of schema lois‘ ea, Chu @ papve eH) we (PDP VO eran of mite Logan open! Syasy aad 8 oy Matheotial opt om ‘The shematie letters azo to be thought of as supplanted by any speci statements coast yield actual eases ke (21) and (22). ‘Now just as (21) end (22) are translatable into (28) and (24), 90, the schemata (25) and (2) themeelver ‘might be supposed ‘analatabio a: em 'P implies» Vg, 3) Nee'pD-p Vd. Hla, however, we ust beware of subtle cnfuon, A quotation ames prsely the expremion inside it; « quod 'p? names the sixteathletior of the alphabet and nothing le, Thus wero (25) and 26) are ehemats or diagrams which depict the form of sstul satoments such a= (21) and (22), on the ose band (27) nd (28) are nat sehenatadepetng the forms of wetualfaternents Sach a8 (28) and (24). On the contrary, (27) snd (28) ar not fehetnats all bata setementstatemente abou the meio fehemata ‘p‘p V aod ‘p>. p V 4” (with just those letter) Moreover the predates “imple and ‘Nod have thus far boss Ioaked upon as tuo only of etstemonts, not of ecamsta; 9 in (27) sad (28) Uey are mimapoliod (pending some deliberate extension of we) ‘The loties ‘and “yin (25) and (26) stand in place of stato- ‘ments For transation of (25) and 25) int wemaatical form, onthe ther hand, wa neod some spedal variables which rfor w atate- ‘ments and thus stand in pace of names of statements, Tat un so ‘95'V) ele, for that purpeso. Then the analogues of (25) and (25) i bemantial form ean be reader: eo ¢imolios the alteration of ¢ and, (@0) Nee (the conditional of ¢ with the altenstion of ¢ andy) ‘We ean cundase (29) and (90) by we af @conventinal notation thick [have elie ealled gua qutatin, @y Pimps VP o Nee D.0V 0 ‘The rlatioship between the modal logic of statement parte tors nd tho somantica approach, which wa prety cimplo and obvious when we eompsred (21)-122) with (25)=(24), ia thus en Wo take on some aight mansure of eubllty atthe stage of * Moshonatia Loi,“_ The Ways of Paradox (29)~(20); Whee oorrepond not to (27)=(28) but to (1)~(32) 1 ie schemata like (25)~(25), moreover, and not alas! state ment ike (21)~(22), tha dhe pages of works on modal lt. oowever, be tat ne it muy, iti in actual elatemente sud ay (21)=(24) thatthe point of medal loge is, and ts te ste parison of (21)~(22) with (28)~(24) thet reeds tae true rea Winship between the wse af statement eperatre sad that of ematical predientee. Schemata such a6 (2)-(20) are mete ours devices, wefl in expounding the theory of (21)~(22) snd their lke; and the beuritie deviees whieh bear similarly on (23)-(24) are (31) (82), Soving how modal stlement operators oun be converted into senate predates, one may of couse jst ote the convertion 4s 8 principle and Teave it undone in practice But thee ure Be "eaons why it important to note tin principle. One tht the inclination to condemn '5" undaly, through a wong wonton of i-then’ with ‘implies is eherelyy removed. A secend razon ie ‘that tot the semantil or pret-theoreie lve, where we talk ‘about expressions and ther tfuth values unde various subsite ont that we make clout wl snl sone of Toga vatesty and ite lgieal validity that comes nearest to eg a clear txpliction of ‘Nec’, taken at a semantcal predates Athi ‘eat is that in using ‘Neo aes emantea proicate we Haunt 8 famtian reminder of referential opacity, inthe form of quotation ‘marks A fourth reason in that the’ adoption of ‘ote! ae atemient operator tempts ane to go a step furter and use as Sentence operator subject to quatifestion, The tnomentournase 0 this further step—wezeot mere acoo-tends to be overlooked fave a one expremly conedives of the ‘oe in ils tee ag Statement operator, a shorthand fr the semantic] sage ‘A filth reneon has todo with iterstion, Since ‘nee tare to 8 atement and produoes statement, ‘neo? eaa then be applied ‘gain, On the other haad "Ne? attaces to t name and yields 2 sotement to whic, therefore, 1 eannot be applied gain. An iterated ne, (39 ne ne(e) es ed D 2 ir), an of eourse be translated by our regiler procedure into ‘emantoal form th: oy [Nee Noe (2s red > 2 ia rod) snd we ate thereby reminded that ‘Nor’ cun indood be iterated if we iavert new quotation mavks at nended. Bt the fact reinlns ‘thst (G4) ie, im contrast with (38), an unlikely move. For, suppose we have made frit sens of “Nev's logical valldlty, relative sey to the loge of tra funetione, quantieatin, and Deeps clases, The statement: es) (leia red > 2 ine), thn, ie typial of the statements to which we would atsbute uch vaicty 20 eo) ee e)(eia rad D xi eed The ality of (5) rsdn nthe fat tot (8) itv ad so ial ctne dstmete vith the tone gansta and tetera tuetare (99). "The i tht 2) ee Butt (he) i tare a aif ail nly mn veto fens with whlch ee 28 ily to bave bom prev ‘overt: «wavering steely suntan end ‘tient sey hs the sel sacar, soma, aftatin sod al Ostinay we wok nx tinangugs, ain (0), tretng ot sn objet langage, exmplied by (8). We wuld not rtf Cit) xcept inthe ram cum whe we want to tret he setaleognge by tot of et, and want freee eco thy roftn of vali beyond!’ the santos af lg to the ‘ante of wantien When onthe ther hod th tenet ‘pert ne, eretion a 2) th moe tra ‘Por it nit that in dele hr a een ae Goesion aston wht Might tnt ely be posted ering retin “To lon nel tof cure be consctve.In the wea scl ater operas Wave complex eran tebe n pagiwea~ short fr co) eo fee (9 D4) D nes (my ~ aI1os The Ways of Parador r,t take an acta! example: 9) ye bas ras) 3 GB) hen nas) 3, '~ (Ge has mats) “3 ~ (eC a oa), 40) nee fae (2 bas mass) 3 (31) has rns) > neo (~()(e has mas) 5 ~ (2) (eat mai - 4s tenon of semsntiol predicats th correspondents of (99) and 0) ae G41) (6 nas mas imines mas)” eh "evC¥eGr hi mss)” implin ~ (2) bs me) (42) New ‘Neo (2)(z bas mas) D (Bee hts mace’ > ‘Neo ‘~(ae}(¢ has mae) ~ (a) has mea” Bt (41-42), like (34), have singular ite interest or moti vation when we think of neeeityaetstelly. ‘eis important to oto that we mst not tanlate the ebemnata (97)-#8) into semantoal form inte manner "9? iemplion “impli et, ‘To do 20 would be to compound, to an altogettier hotitying degre, the error noted earlier of equating (23)=(26) to (27)= (28), "rhe snaioguce of (87)-(88) im semantic ‘ppliction should bo rendered rather (43) lpiceyimption pimple oy, (4) Neo Nee "9 D¥"D Neo "9D ~97, subjeot to tome specal conventions governing the nesting of ‘woei-quotations, Sach eonveatone would Summ a certain subtle ansderatons which will not be entered upon her. Sufi i recall thatthe ort of thing formulated in (99)-(34) and (S7}~ (4A) in precisely the sor of thing we ace lk to ae leat point in formating wien we think of noeeity tity aa semastical predicate rather than a sateen operator. Ke fpreaive ane ignifeant tat most at modal logie (chor of quanied modal ogi, to which we shall soon tar} is tlken up wit iterated uses like (88) and (7)-(40) which would simply aut roommmend ‘themselves to our ntiaution If noenity were held to the stats of ‘8 smantial predate and not daprested fo the level of tate= rent operator. Our reflections have fevered the semantial side immensely, but they anst not be allowed to obscure the fect that even as a semsntieal predicate notaity can rene grave quietions, Thee is no dinity us long as acesly is construed as validity relative ‘say to the logic of tut fonctions snd quantifeation ant perhaps lass If we think of aihmetio as edu to clan theory, then toch valitity covers also the teuhs of aitete, But quo tends te include farther taritory ill; etses such as ‘No bachelor is rmarricd, whose tuth is supposed to depend on “meanings of term” or oa "eguonyny” (ee, tho synonymy of ‘bachooe and ‘man not mari’. The eypouymy relation on which sub ona depend is supposedly 4 narrower ‘elation than tht ofthe mere fcacetnsivenss of terms, and itis not kaown to be amenable to toy. sutinfactory soniye. In short, neouty la comanticel ‘ppliation tends to be idenised with what philosopher call foulyticty; and analtisity, T beve argued elwwhere? is a ‘pieuo-coneept whieh philosophy would be beta off without. “Ae long as necesity in eemantiesl application is conve simply as explicetuth-fnetional validity, onthe otber hen, or ‘quantifeational validity, or set-dheoretio validity, or validity of ‘ny otter woll-determined kind, tho logic of the semantical ecsrity predicate ie a sgnfcabh and very cantal stand of pruot they, But ie not aod logo, even unqusntied modal ogi, asthe latter ordinarily presents itself; for tsa remark ‘iy teager thing, bereft of all the complestiea ‘which are fenooureged by the ure of ‘ae! as statement operator. Tei tinqusntiged! modal logie ina all prosples whieh, explsly oF Ingle (vi 3, ee), tavove iteration of tonealty; and ps, if ye ane Ktaralminded, « pai of quotation marks after sec Nee Having adopted the operator '~? of negation as appliable to statement, one applies it without sovoud thought fo opca fentencee av well sentences containing free variables ripe for Gqtotieaion, Thus we ean write not only '~(Sooratn ie oral) ut seo '~ (ee mortal) from whie, by quatifeaLion ‘two dogmas of empriien™170 The Ways of Paradoe nd further negation we have '~(2) ~(2 is moral) or bre iy (3x) (¢ i mortal)”. With negation this eas it sald be. Ae long snes eed sttameatoperstor, on a par with negation, the snalogooscouessogrete ite again: we rite not only neo (9-5) tt alo ‘neo (2 > 5) rom which by quantiseation we a orn (6)=(8) a the ike, "This etep brings Us tone’ ae sentence operator, Given ‘ee’ as stalement operator, the lap i natural. et itis a drate one, fr iW suddenly’ebetructs the calir expedint of tranation into terme of ‘Nec! ar semantic preicat, We ean reconstruc (4) ‘and (5) at will as (1) and (3), but we eannot rrousrue «9, eo (o> 8) corespontingly a: ) Neo's > 8 "Nee hasbeen understood upto now as a predicate true only of statements, whereas (40) atiibatn i athe to wn open sentence Sod in Uh tially fale, st least ponding some calibers tension of usage. More important, whereas (45) is open fetence with free‘, (48) hat bo comespending generality; (46) is smply a statement about a poste open sentence, For, mut be reremered that's > 8 fn quotation marks Ses ace of the speiie quoted expression, with fixed letter “P. The ‘ein (88) ‘cannot be esched by a quantifier. To write: «a (Nee "> 5), GaN (Neo ‘x > 8) i ike writing (48) @GBourates is mortal), x)Soerates is mortal); the quantifier is followed ty no. germane oowarrence of St vrible, In word, neoeity at sentanoe operstar dace not go over into terns of necesity ac somantial predicate. ‘Moreover, aoveptance of necesity at & seatenoe operator ‘uaplin an atte quite opposite to our eater one (in §§I-TL tba), whieh was that nee” at statement operalr Je refer tially epagoe, Por, one would cleatly have no business quent ing into a referenially opaque content; witaas (47) above. We an reasonably infor (32) nee (= > 8)" rom ‘nee (9 > 6)" ealy ite regard te lator as tolling us something about the object 9, ‘number, vie hut it mwesuilyexceds 5, I! nee (. . . >)" aa tur out tre or ale “of” the number 9 depending merely on how hat number is velar to (as the fabity of (18) meets), then evidently ‘ae (> 8)" expresnea no gensine condition on objet of any kind the occurence of" nue (9 > 5) i ot purely referential, then putting “for 0" in ‘nee (9 > 6)" makes no more sease than patting '2° for ‘nine’ within the con ut iw it stted by ee truth of (4) aad (12) an the fale of (18) that tho oeenrene of in question i ieeretil, and sare generally that ‘esis referentally opaque, sod bende that ‘noe a a sentence operator under qualifier is mistake? No. ot if ono in prepared to accede to certain ‘pelty deat departures, 08 we bal 2, ‘Thus fat we have tentatively condemned nevesity ss general, sentence apersoron the groin tht ‘ne’ isrefereially cpa Its referential opacity hus been shown by & breakdown in the operation of potting one constant ainglas tern or another whieh fares the aaron abject Tut it may futly be prota’ that orsant singular tarme are a aotationl asides, ot mood the level af primitive notation Yor is wall knowa that prizitively nothing i the way of si ula terms ls neded except the variable of quantifestion then felves. Dorivatively all manner of singular tems may be into Aluced by oontertaal definition in confoaity with Russell ‘theory of singular deseiptions. Case names in partooar, which ‘url inthe geneal argument for extensonality in §E above, ray be got either by explaining ‘&(. )" as short for the tentestully dofined deseription y) (a) (eey.= s+)? ot by ‘opting sparate set of contextual defitone for the purpose” ‘Now the modal Togisan invent on quautifying Into ‘nee? scatenses may say that nee’ sno referentially opaque, bt that it merely intereres somewhat with the contextual denition ogular terms, He may arguc that “(B2) neo (2 > 5)" i not ‘monaingles but tro, and in parislar that the somber 9 is one ofthe things of which ‘neo (=> 3) is true. He may Blame the real er apparent dzerepaney i rath valve between (4) ad (18) Simply on « quowr behavior of eanlestually defined singular ‘armas Spedially he may Bold hat (18) ie tru feasted oa Ck my Methods of Lay, 18; Matra Laa The Wage of Parados 49) @afthere are exasy x plants ve (e > 8] nd fale if conetrued a (60) neo (thre ase exactly x laneta.2 > 5), and that (18) at sande ig smbiguous for lack of w distinguish Sng mark favoring (0) or (50), No wich ambiguity rice nthe ‘onteriual dfston of singular ter in extensions lose ( foog ae the nained cbject exists), and our modal logician may ‘yall deplore the eomplintione which cho eso from the presence ‘of ‘nee in is prtntive notation Stil he ean fey potest Chat te erste behavior of coteatually dened singular terms i 90 ‘etloetion onthe meaainglulnee of his primitive notation, acd Sng hia open ‘nee sentenos and his quantieaton of tha, Lacking upon qusstiieation as fundamental, end. constant singular terns as contextually defined, one must indeod eoncede {he iconeisivenoe of w ritetion of referential opacity that rests fon interchanges of oonstant singular terme. Toe objects of 6 theory are nat propulydeveribable athe things namin bythe Singular terme; they are the valuos, rather, of the variales of ‘qeantiScaton* Purdawentally the proper erteion of referen~ tial opacity turns on quanieatlon rather than naming, and is ‘thins referential opaque conte i one thet ann properly bo quantified into (with quanti outside the context nd Variable nee) Quotation, again, ie the reforentially opaque Coatet par entllenon; ef. (47). However, ta object to meseaty fi rentence operator on We grounda of oferntial opacity «0 dined woold be simpy to beg the quetion. ‘rogesexitaion of referential onurrence, vie, subettutivity of Sdeatity, underlay the aoton of refareatial opeity as devel> ‘oped in §T above. The elaiaments of entity there onveraed snes formed of constant single arme; ef. (11), (2). But there Jes more fundamental form of the law of subetituiity of ents, which involver no constant alagular tena, but only ‘variables of quatigestion; via, ow» Me = 9.D.Fe= Py. "This lew ie independent of any theory of singular tor, end anno! propely be challenged, For, to ehallenge it were wip 10 ‘ee Prom a Loyiol Point of Viow, pp. 12, Tl, O-110, 1M, 148. vse the sign ‘= in some unaoexstomed way itelevaat to our ingury. Tn any theory, whatever the shapes of ie symbole, an open stance whowe (ve variables are ‘rand is an expreson of identity only in eave i Tull (6) inthe role of '2 = y. The seneralityof ‘Pin (61) ie thie: “Fis to be interpretable any ‘pan seutanee of tho eystom in qutation, having ‘2 a0 fee (quantifiable) variable; and “Fy, of courte, is ta be m orme- spaaiing contest of 1f no’ ie uot referataly opaque ‘Fs and ‘Fy in (1) enn in parseular be taken respectiely se “neo. (@=a)" and ‘nee (ee Bom (6) that, se uly ns (2 re wo (We = ¥.D mee = Wh Le, identity olde necesesiy i holds a al, Tet us not jump to the concusion, just beeause (12) i true that oo noe (the number of plenets 9) ‘Tin dose not follow from (12) and (32) except with help of 2 law of univer instantiation, allowing uso put singular tras ‘the numbar of planes’ and "for the univecslly quantiGod 2" and “y/ of (52), Such instntition ie allowable, certainly, in extensional Togic; but it ie w quertion of good Behavior of constant ingaln terms, and we sve lately cboerved that such ‘ebarior is not to be costed on when there ie a “not the Woodie '8o our obvervations on necesity in qusntifiational application sxe, up to nom, Zllows. Neeeity in eich appliation i not rina facie absurd if we aovept some intrlerenge In the ‘sntetual definition of sagular terme. Tho est ofthis intarter- ‘ng i that constant singular tt eannet be manipulated wi the customary feedom, even when thie objects exist. In pari Jae they eannot be usd fo latantate universal quantseatons, unless speial eapporting lemmas are at hand. further atet of netesty in quantifieational application is that object come to ‘benoctsurily identical if dential a all "Thar is yot a futher comsoquenr, anda partiouley etrking one: Avciotalinn essentials. This is te docteoe tht some of the atebutes ofa thing (quite independently ofthe language inmm ‘The Ways of Poraioe ‘hie he thing Is refered to fat all) may bo essential to the thing, and others atedental. Bg, a man, or talking animal, ot featherles biped (for they are in fat ail the sae thing), Ss cecentinlly retinal and acldentally two-legged and talkative, not merely gus man but qua itelf, More formally, what Aisotlan eesatnlsm saya ie thet you ean have open sen tences—which I shall represent here at "2 and ‘Gz'—euch that 9 (ae)(nee Ps Gs. ~ ee 6), An example of (64) related tothe faleity of (6) might be (ince > 5) tare are juste plants ‘~noe (hare ar ust planes) sch an object x bring the amber (by whatever nats) which ia ‘aviosly Kowa ae 9 sa Use numberof planet. ow Arisoalan eentilsm ae above foraulated ie required by quintied modal togie ean be quickly shown. Actually something yet stronger ean be showa: that there are open ‘tstence’ PY and Ge talling nok merely (84) but (lave Fe Ge. ~ nse Gs), (2) nee Fs. (2) Oe (2) ~ ne Ge An appropriate choive of "Fi esey:‘e = 2, And an appropento che of (G2 is = 2 9, wherein pce of‘! any etatament is ‘ham which i true bai ot neta true, Surly there i mich ‘ atement for etherwie‘nee’ won bem ractoosoperstar ad ‘here would be no point in moda! Lge. ‘Necusity a9 semanteal prdieae relets « noo-Arieatlian view of necesty: necsity reside in the way in which we sey ‘things, and not in the things we tale about Necesity. as statement operator is eapable, vo sa, of being reoostrued [a ters of necessity ase semantial prodiete, but has, severe Tos, ita special danges; it makes for an’ exeaaive and idle elaboration of lane of erated modality, and tempt one to & final plunge into quantified medality. Ths lat complicates the logie of singular temas; wore, it lads us back into the mete physi! jungle of Aristtaia eset 14 « Reply to Professor Marcus Profesor Marcus ctruck the right note when se represeted me ‘suggesting that modem modal loge was eanesived i sin: the sin of confusing use and mention, Ske rightly dif not rpreseat ime a holding that mode! logic rarer confusion of and mention, My” point waa historiesl one having to do. with sels contin of then with pli Lewis founded modern modal lgie, but Rusa provoked bi to it For whereas there is much to be said for the material sonditinsl use version of St-then, het uetng tobe sid for it asa version of imple end Hutsll alle it impleaton, Cs ‘apparently Teaving no poe open for genuine dedotive eomnee- tions between seatonses, Lewin moved to save the cinsestions, But bis way wan not, a8 one could have hed, to tort ott ‘Rusells confusion of “impli” with f-then’ Tasteud,preeering that confusion, he propounded a sect eonitional std eal it impietion, Tis logealy possible to like modal logie without confusing ure and mention. You could ike # beesuee, appatetly at leas, you an quantify into w modal context by a quantser ove the noi context, wheress you obviously eunnot coherently quan ty into @ teeationed eentance from onteide the tuttion of i Sill, man sa enue-makng animal, stl ax such be drives ide ‘The wpe rented aoa semsnntry at meine ofthe Ron Cie (qe forthe Pop of Wc, Rosey 40 thle eS es ‘fovedogs of tne ering ewes pobibed iy Stans (es 3 Tih aud aM. Waray, ed Bove Studie the Paopy of ‘nce Daye, Holand: Big Pesahing Ca, 180