No, not the philosopher. Bill V. is fond of demonstrating his notion of 'singular existence' by reference to one of his cats. 'Max exists!' he exclaims, and his readers can imagine the accompanying thump on the table. I've said many times now that this statement is true but uninformative, given that Bill must already have told us 'I have a cat named 'Max Black'', or some such. I guess it behoves me to explain why our language has such constructions. For if we think that language evolves by the elimination of the uninformative and the redundant, then surely such locutions should vanish?
Firstly, a singular existential claim like 'Max exists!' serves to emphasise and reinforce a general existence claim. If Bill informs me that he has a cat called 'Max', that Max is such-and-such and has done so-and-so, and I am looking somewhat quizzical, Bill may say 'But Max really exists!' in order to urge on me the truth of what he is telling me.
A second use for the singular existential occurs when knowledge by description turns into knowledge by acquaintance. I know Max only by the descriptions Bill writes in his blog. All knowledge from description is held but tentatively, at least at first. We all know that what we read in the papers and what people tell us can be false, wilfully or mistakenly. If I were to travel to Arizona and meet Max in the flesh I would come to know him by acquaintance. I might well exclaim 'So Max really exists!' Though I have no doubt that what Bill has told us about Max is true, nevertheless I am reassured when knowledge by description is confirmed by acquaintance. Being the co-operative social creatures that we are this phenomenon lies deep in our psychology. We are obliged to rely on information from others but are aware that we can be deceived. So we are constantly on our guard.