Is There a Problem about Substitutional Quantification ?
Saul A. Kripke · 1999
Abstract Three Recent papers, two by John Wallace and one by Leslie Tharp,1 have attempted to prove that the distinctions usually made between ‘substitutional’ and ‘referential’ quantification are untenable. Now I have not only been puzzled that able authors should advance such a thesis; I have also been surprised to find that many able readers of their papers have believed that they have succeeded, or may possibly have succeeded. Sample statements of the thesis are: (1) Advantages which were supposed to attach to substitutional quantification by virtue of its ‘lighter’, less predication committed, recursion are all lost. The range for quantified variables and the bias toward extensionality are present in the derived recursion on satisfaction (Wallace (2), p. 208).