{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03235515425131678, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.518672199170124, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Modes of Being and Quantification

Many philosophers have held that being comes in various kinds or sorts or “modes”. One thinks of Meinong’s Existenz and Bestand, of Russell’s existence and subsistence, of Sartre’s etre-en-soi and etrepour-soi, and of Heidegger’s Vorhandenheit, Zuhandenheit, and Existenz. But if there is more than one mode of being, what is the relation between the several modes of being and the existential quantifier? Does not the fact that there is a single existential quantifier strongly suggest that there is a single mode of being — or, perhaps better, that the concept “mode” has no application to being? I will put the idea that underlies this question in the form of an argument for the conclusion that there cannot be two or more modes of being. Suppose we add to the language of first-order logic with identity a property abstraction operator, ‘Π’. This operator takes a variable and a sentence and makes a term in which that variable is not free. If the abstraction operator is applied to a variable α and a sentence in which α alone is free, the result is a closed term that denotes the property or attribute or quality expressed by that open sentence: the expression ‘Πx x is wise’ (“The property of being an x such that x is wise”) denotes wisdom, and ‘Πz z is brave’ denotes bravery or cour-