"Is" in that statement is a descriptor, not an assignment of existence. When I say "some cows are brown," that doesn't necessarily mean I have in mind a specific existent cow that is brown, or indeed that I am even actively aware that such a cow really does exist anywhere. As it so happens, that particular statement is formulated in a manner that permits it to be verified (through the production of at least one example of a brown cow that obviously must exist to be produced), but it's not true because the subject I was using exists ("some cows" is a hypothetical subject), but rather because the hypothetical can be verified.
Anyway don't blame me for the King of France example, blame Bertrand Russell.
EDIT: Also consider the negation of "The present King of France is bald" if we were to just say "that's false." If that's false, the negation is true, so "The present King of France is not bald" is true. Obviously that's not the case either, so it can't be a simple matter. Ryukishi (and others, he's hardly alone in this) get around this by just letting you claim either statement is true, but without any meaning.
|