focused on the question whether exists' functions as a logical predicate, like walks', true of individuals, or should be interpreted as the

existential quantifier; the denial that exists' is a predicate is associated with Kant's critique of the ontological argument for the existence of God (see his Critique of ure !eason, translated b" aul Gu"er and #llen $% $ood, (Cambridge& Cambridge 'niversit" ress, ())*+ #,)-./0-12#013./03(+, and with 4rege (see 5he 4oundations of #rithmetic& a 6ogico2mathematical 7nquir" into the Concept of 8umber, translated b" 9% 6% #ustin (- nd ed% :xford& /asil /lackwell, (),3+, p%0,+; it has recentl" become popular to question this interpretation% :ne of the background issues here is the need to make sense of singular negative existential statements, such as 6ao 5;u does not exist'%

4or introduction to these issues see section 3 of <ark =ainsbur", hilosophical 6ogic', in #% C% Gra"ling, ed%, hilosoph", and =tephen $illiams's essa" 7xistence', in 9% Kim and 7% =osa, eds%, # Companion to <etaph"sics (:xford& /lackwell, ()),+% 4or some historical background, see /arr" <iller, 7xistence' http&..plato%stanford%edu.entries.existence.%

4or the idea that there is simpl" a univocal notion of existence associated with the existential quantifier, see >uine, :n $hat 5here ?s', in 4rom a 6ogical oint of @iew; for a contrasting view see 8athan =almon, 7xistence', in 9ames 7% 5omberlin, ed%, <etaph"sics, hilosophical erspectives (, (#tascadero, Cal%& !idgeview, ()*A+% Gareth 7vans, 5he @arieties of !eference, (:xford& :xford 'niversit" ress, ()*-+, ch%(1, contains an invaluable surve" of earlier discussions and an important proposal about how to interpret negative singular existential statements (a brief gloss on this is provided in =ainsbur"'s essa"+% 4or a contrasting view of empt" names see Keith Bonnellan, =peaking of 8othing', hilosophical !eview *3 (()AC+& 323(% <ichael Bummett, 7xistence', in his 5he =eas of 6anguage, (:xford& :xford 'niversit" ress, ())3+, criticises 7vans's account and defends a 4regean approach to empt" names; Bavid $iggins, in 5he Kant24rege2!ussell @iew of 7xistence', in $ =innot2#rmstrong, ed%, <odalit", <oralit", and /elief& 7ssa"s in Donor of !uth /arcan <arcus (Cambridge& Cambridge 'niversit" ress, ())C+, defends the Kant24rege account of exists' and combines this with a modification of 7vans's account (an excellent primer for this is <ark =ainsbur"'s 8ames, 4ictional 8ames, #nd !eall" '& =upplement to the roceedings of 5he #ristotelian =ociet" A3, (()))+& -C32-0)%+ 4or a useful

recent collection of essa"s, see #% 7verett and 5% Dofweber, eds%, 7mpt" 8ames, 4iction and the u;;les of 8on27xistence (=tanford& C=6? -111+%

4or a surve" of the various forms of ontological argument see Graham :pp", :ntological #rguments E /elief in God, (Cambridge& Cambridge 'niversit" ress, ()),+%