Final answer:
Free-logic-style semantics for traditional syllogisms do not imply that the discussed entities necessarily exist in reality. Philosophers like Kant have highlighted that existence cannot be a predicate; thus, acknowledging a concept's existence in the mind does not mean it exists in reality.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question challenges the notion that traditional syllogisms, and by extension, logical arguments that employ terms like 'existence' necessarily imply that the subjects being discussed must exist in reality. The free-logic-style semantics for syllogisms do not commit to the existence of the entities in question. This is particularly clarified by philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, who argued against the ontological view by asserting that existence is not a predicate that can be attributed to a concept to affirm its real existence. Thus, a concept's intra-mental presence (in the mind) does not necessitate its extra-mental reality (in the world outside the mind).
Furthermore, when we apply this reasoning to Anselm's ontological argument about the existence of God or to any concept such as a 'unicorn,' we find that the mere mental concept of these entities does not suffice to confirm their existence; empirical evidence is required. As Kant pointedly noted, we do not add anything to the concept of an entity by professing its existence.
In conclusion, the semantic approach to traditional syllogisms, according to free logic, does not imply actual existence as free logic allows for discourse about entities that may not exist in reality. It seeks only to preserve logical coherence in arguments without making ontological commitments.