Some reactions to: Betrand Russel's Existence and General Propositions

Russel states in his essay that existence is exclusively a predicate for propositional functions, which rules out individual cases from possessing the property of existing. In order to clarify this statement, we need a context for this term 'existence.' Apparently existing is different from living (this seems to be an understandable confusion, since these terms get bundled up in common expression). In this formulation, existing is a more basic characteristic that applies to the categories of things. Classes of things can exist; this predicate is for a specific and fundamental function. To say that 'dragons do not exist' seems to be a more basic statement than 'dragons breathe fire.' At first glance, existence is the predicate (property) that is esentially necessary for all other predicates to follow and be true. This seems intuitive--if dragons don't exist, then how could they breathe fire? But Russel asserts that if dragons did not exist, then it would still be correct to state that they do breathe fire, because there would be no individuals to support the negation of the claim, which would make it false, and the original claim (dragons breathe fire) true. This seems like a tricky way out of something that intuitively makes sense. I think it is logical to assert that if there is an individual that breathes fires, it belongs to an existing class of things. Revision: Russel does suggest that individuals exist, but it is not a propety that they possess, but rather a property of the class.