-4
  1. A king of France doesn't exist.

It makes sense because there's no king of France.

  1. The king of France doesn't exist.

Does it make sense? Because if "the" implies the existence, this sentence is paradoxical (the king of France who exists doesn't exist).

According to Russell's theory of descriptions, indefinite descriptions (e.g. "an F") contribute only a bare existence claim to the truth-conditions of the sentences in which they appear, whereas definite descriptions (e.g. "the F") contribute both existence and uniqueness claims.

When it comes to demonstrative determiners (this, that, etc.), they certainly imply the existence of something. So "this cat doesn't exist" is self-contradictory. So what about "the"?

  • *The unicorn is a mythical beast,* but that never stopped anyone from talking and writing about it. – FumbleFingers Dec 04 '23 at 12:19
  • @FumbleFingers Yes, "the" has several meanings. That is used to generalize. I want to know "the" in use of "specificness". –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:21
  • It implies no ontological existence only an epistemological existence as a subject of discourse. – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:21
  • @TimRonsomedevice Then you think "the king of France doesn't exist" is wrong like "this cat doesn't exist"? –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:22
  • I don't understand your question. Please rephrase. – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:23
  • @TimRonsomedevice I mean "this cat doesn't exist" is wrong because "this" means a cat exists. What about "the"? –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:24
  • It is a self-contradictory statement. I don't know what you mean by "wrong". – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:25
  • I used "wrong" as "self-contradictory". –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:25
  • This cat doesn't exist is self-contradictory in the sense that this is a virtual pointing-at-something-near-at-hand. But the doesn't have any real-world deictic implications. – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:27
  • @TimRonsomedevice Then, "the king of France doesn't exist" is not self-contradictory? –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:28
  • 1
    I don't know what you mean by "the king of France". It is a statement without context. But I should add that "this" can be used to refer to a topic of discourse, not to something with ontological existence: This Santa Claus fellow you've been talking about. He doesn't exist. And in that case it is not self-contradictory. – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:31
  • @TimRonsomedevice Thank you. –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:32
  • Does he imply ontological existence? – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:32
  • @TimRonsomedevice That's a good question. Does he imply ontological existence? –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:33
  • 2
    Strictly speaking, language refers to itself, and we must take it on faith that there is an ontos backing it all up, that the world isn't "words all the way down" – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:35
  • @TimRonsomedevice I really wonder "he" implies the ontological existence. –  Dec 04 '23 at 12:36
  • Well, if you bump into Santa Claus, give me a shout. Post his geocoordinates. – TimR on some device Dec 04 '23 at 12:39
  • "I met the king of France." "No. The king of France doesn't exist." – Yosef Baskin Dec 04 '23 at 16:06
  • 1
    You seem to be asking a philosophy question, not an English question. In English, whether or not you'd use a definite article (and even how you would frame the entire statement) depends on the context and your intention (neither of which has been included in your question). As such, this can't really be answered here. – Laurel Dec 04 '23 at 16:40
  • @Laurel Every time I say something like that, I get my knuckles rapped. [correction: imply the existence of a king] – Lambie Dec 04 '23 at 18:42
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because this doesn't seem to be a question of Learning English. Perhaps it is philosophy. Perhaps linguistics. It's not clear what you mean by "imply existence" since obviously people can talk about things that don't exist. You seem to to be fundamentally confused about "natural language". I don't think there is a useful answer in an ELL context. – James K Dec 04 '23 at 20:04
  • I’m voting to close this question because it seems to be based on a number of misperceptions, perhaps willful ones, and a confusion of ontology with grammar. – Andy Bonner Dec 05 '23 at 23:41
  • We certainly can say "This cat doesn't exist," as long as we've established a frame of reference. We can talk about non-existent things (sentience has its perks!), and we can even narrow the discussion to specific non-existent things. We don't have to be holding something physically in hand to say "this." – Andy Bonner Dec 05 '23 at 23:42
  • Ohhhh I see, you're the same user who posted this question. I'll add a downvote here because you seem not to have learned from it. It seems most of your questions are about "existence" or "non-existence" and hinge on false assumptions like the notion that abstract or imaginary concepts cannot be discussed with language. – Andy Bonner Dec 05 '23 at 23:47

1 Answers1

2

The definite article can be used with things that are inherently unique, even if they don't exist. We understand that, aside from a few historical anomalies, monarchies have a single king and that the King of France, if he existed, would be the only King of France. Historically this was certainly true when France was a monarchy.

But even in cases where the monarchy never existed, we can say something like, "The King of Argentina doesn't exist and never has," because we know what monarchies almost always look like. The definite article refers not to the existence (or non-existence) of the king or even a history of kings, but to the uniqueness inherent in the position of supreme monarch.

Similarly, we could say, "The pope of the Southern Baptist Church doesn't exist," because we are familiar with the office of the Pope and know that he is unique within his religious denomination. We would not say, without any other context, "The bishop of the Southern Baptist Church doesn't exist," because denominations with bishops usually have many people in that position.

Canadian Yankee
  • 12,050
  • 28
  • 38
  • I'd say: A pope in the Southern Baptist Church is non-existent. – Lambie Dec 04 '23 at 18:43
  • 1
    @Lambie - I'd say you could use either the definite or indefinite article in this case. Maybe there's a teeny, tiny difference in meaning: "The [position of] Pope does not exist" versus "A [person who is] Pope does not exist", but that's really stretching things. – Canadian Yankee Dec 04 '23 at 18:47
  • Well, I most certainly disagree with that. – Lambie Dec 04 '23 at 18:48