In [6] I tried to show how an objection to “the nominalist's” analysis of “This is red” and “That is red” on the basis of “the doctrine of common names” might be overcome. The objection is that “the nominalist,” attempting to analyze and by construing the pronouns in these sentences as two different proper names and “red” as a common name, is forced thereby to construe the copula in both sentences as the “is” of identity, and hence this and that (...) are identical, i.e., that there is only one red spot and not two. I attempted to show that by using Leśniewski's original axiom of ontology “the nominalist” could construe the pronouns in and as proper names, and “red” as a common name without taking the copula to express identity; he would not be forced to identify this with that. (shrink)

This paper assesses those features of Lesniewski's Ontology which make it difficult to understand for logicians accustomed to more orthodox systems of logic. It is seen that certain general features of presentation and content can, by selective acceptance or modification, be accommodated with a fairly orthodox viewpoint. The chief difficulty lies in the interpretation of Le?niewski's names, and the constant ???. Four interpretations are suggested in turn: Le?niewski's names as monadic predicates; as class terms; as common nouns; and as empty, (...) singular or plural terms. This last and least orthodox interpretation is argued to be the most suitable, but it is shown how it can be made to live in harmony with either the common noun or the class interpretation. (shrink)