Abstract

Yuval Steinitz has argued that, since it is logically possible that there are logically necessary beings, it follows that there is at least one logically necessary being. Steinitz switches the Leibnitzean ontological argument's concern from perfect beings to logically necessary beings. My paper has two primary aims. First, I argue that Steinitz's quick treatment is insufficient to establish the validity of his argument. Secondly, I argue that the correct approach to logical necessity must account for those possible situations in which the meanings of some of the terms in our language might have been different; on such an approach, the premise of Steinitz's argument is false. My remarks here are intended to add to the prima facie plausibility of Hume's claim that logic has no existential implications