In De Interpretatione, Aristotle offers an account of the conditions under which a term like ‘man’ signifies the kind man. This involves, in the case of simple names, the name being correlated with a thought, whose content is determined by efficient causal contact with the kind in question. Aristotle offers a separate account of how the signification of empty names, such as ‘goatstag’, is determined. His account, however, generates a problem: he wishes to hold that (1) the signification of ‘man’ is determined by causal contact with an existing kind and also that (2) we do not know in grasping...

In De Interpretatione, Aristotle offers an account of the conditions under which a term like ‘man’ signifies the kind man. This involves, in the case of simple names, the name being correlated with a thought, whose content is determined by efficient causal contact with the kind in question. Aristotle offers a separate account of how the signification of empty names, such as ‘goatstag’, is determined. His account, however, generates a problem: he wishes to hold that (1) the signification of ‘man’ is determined by causal contact with an existing kind and also that (2) we do not know in grasping the signification of this term that the kind exists. Can he hold on to both these claims?