When we talk about a horse named for the Ashes, we are usually clear about who they are, namely: a representative of the breed of horses, and we know exactly Ash. It is an object to which we can touch and that you can specify. "Horse," by contrast, is not an object that can be found in the stables or at the racetrack, which can be seen and on which you can specify. If we used the theory of meaning, according to which the linguistic expressions only make sense when the point to something that exists [Of course, this is a very controversial thesis. After all, for example, are meaningful words or phrases such as "or" and "maybe." Criticism refe-differential theory of linguistic meaning cm. J.Searle. Speech Acts. The Cambridge, 1969], and knew at once that meaningful to say, for example, that "the horse is a mammal", then it would follow that the word "horse" must point to something. But since this is something not perceived sensually, then it must be something insensible, that is, the idea of ??"horse." In this case, the "idea" horse must be some entity that exists, even though we can not perceive it in space and time.