There are four broad grounds upon which the intelligibility of quantification over absolutely everything has been questioned—one based upon the existence of semantic indeterminacy, another on the relativity of ontology to a conceptual scheme, a third upon the necessity of sortal restriction, and the last upon the possibility of indefinite extendibility. The argument from semantic indeterminacy derives from general philosophical considerations concerning our understanding of language. For the Skolem–Lowenheim Theorem appears to show that an understanding of quanti- fication over absolutely (...) everything (assuming a suitably infinite domain) is semantically indistinguishable from the understanding of quantification over something less than absolutely everything; the same first-order sentences are true and even the same first-order conditions will be satisfied by objects from the narrower domain. From this it is then argued that the two kinds of understanding are indistinguishable tout court and that nothing could count as having the one kind of understanding as opposed to the other. (shrink)

Whether or not we achieve absolute generality in philosophical inquiry, most philosophers would agree that ordinary inquiry is rarely, if ever, absolutely general. Even if the quantifiers involved in an ordinary assertion are not explicitly restricted, we generally take the assertion’s domain of discourse to be implicitly restricted by context.1 Suppose someone asserts (2) while waiting for a plane to take off.

Quantification is haunted by the specter of paradoxes. Since Russell, it has been a persistent idea that the paradoxes show what might have appeared to be absolutely unrestricted quantification to be somehow restricted. In the contemporary literature, this theme is taken up by Dummett (1973, 1993) and Parsons (1974a,b). Parsons, in particular, argues that both the Liar and Russell’s paradoxes are to be resolved by construing apparently absolutely unrestricted quantifiers as appropriately restricted.

Most of the time our quantifications generalise over a restricted domain. Thus in the last sentence, ‘most of the time’ is arguably not a generalisation over all times in the history of the universe but is restricted to a sub-group of times, those at which humans exist and utter quantified phrases and sentences, say. Indeed the example illustrates the point that quantificational phrases often carry an explicit restriction with them: ‘some people’, ‘all dogs’. Even then, context usually restricts to a (...) subdomain of the class specified by the count noun. Although teenagers like to have fun by being, they mistakenly think, overly literal— ‘Everyone is tired, let’s get to bed’: ‘everyone: you mean every person in the entire universe?’— competent language users have to be sensitive to context virtually all the time. But is it always the case that generalisation is over a restricted domain? On the face of it, to claim this is paradoxical. If we say. (shrink)