How do Carnap's views relate to Quine's? First, it might well be asked, which of the quantifier accounts canvassed above is Carnap endorsing when he claims to be in agreement with Quine?  Since Carnap clearly allows a philosopher who has not accepted (for pragmatic reasons) some kind of entity to attribute acceptance of that kind to another philosopher, Carnap's view would appear to be closest to the metalinguistic version of Quine's quantifier account. We are making claims about linguistic frameworks, and what follows from the rules of those frameworks; and these claims, at least for Carnap, do not make problematic assertions about “reality”. Second, a consequence of Carnap's view is that theories with different ontological commitments should not be thought of as conflicting. This contrasts sharply with Quine. Because Quine has a single, all-purpose logico-linguistic framework—austere first-order predicate logic—within which all theories are couched for purposes of examining their ontological commitments, theories with differing existential presuppositions genuinely conflict; a philosopher must choose which theory to accept. For Carnap, theories with differing ontological commitments are ipso facto couched within different linguistic frameworks. If there is disagreement, it can only be over the relative pragmatic virtues of the frameworks in question. In this way, Carnap's deflationary approach to ontology carries with it a deflationary approach to ontological commitment. Carnap is a pluralist; a philosopher can choose to accept multiple theories, with differing ontological commitments, without pain of contradiction. Let many flowers bloom (see Carnap 1950: 221).