Abstract

Types are abstract, instantiatable and sui generis entities postulated by platonists to account for the truth of a particular species of intuitively true sentences. Nominalism is the view that, in fact, no types are needed to fulfil the purpose in question. Nominalism is ontologically parsimonious and, hence, commendable—but there is a compelling argument to the effect that, pace the nominalist, types are indispensable to vindicate the truth of the sentences at issue. In my paper, I contend that this argument fails. I also outline a novel, fictionalist account of the relevant sentences, and argue that this account holds a special promise over both nominalism and platonism. I close by defending my fictionalist theory from its most prominent potential objections.