David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 77 (2):171-187 (2003)
Beings of reason or non-existent objects have always been a source of mind-boggling paradoxes that have vexed philosophers and thinkers in the past and present. Consider Bertrand Russell’s paradox: “if A and B are not different, then the difference between A and B does not subsist. But how can a non-entity be the subject of a proposition?” Or Meinong’s paradox: “There are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects.” At the root of these troubling conundrums are two basic questions: What are beings of reason? What kind of existence do they have? Francisco Suárez was well aware that a solution to the metaphysical questions concerning the essential character of beings of reason and their ontological status would serve as the key to solving the puzzles and paradoxes just described. A solution to these metaphysical questions would also bring about an understanding of how we talk about beings of reason and other problems that they give rise to in the philosophy of language. In this paper, I present Suárez’s view on the nature andontological status of beings of reason and clarify some of the following questions: What kind of beings (entia) are beings of reason? What kind of being (esse) do beings of reason have? This latter concern is related to the following metaphysical issues: What are real beings? What is the nature and ontological status of possible beings? What is the distinction between real beings, actual beings, and possible beings?
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Dominik Novotný (2006). Prolegomena to a Study of Beings of Reason in Post-Suarezian Scholasticism, 1600–1650. Studia Neoaristotelica 3 (2):117-141.
Victoria McGreer (2008). Varieties of Moral Agency: Lessons From Autism (and Psychopathy). In Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.), Moral Psychology, Volume 3. MIT Press.
John P. Doyle (1987). Suarez on Beings of Reason and Truth (1). Vivarium 25 (1):47-75.
John P. Doyle (1988). Suarez on Beings of Reason and Truth (2). Vivarium 26 (1):51-72.
Peter Baumann (2007). Persons, Human Beings, and Respect. Polish Journal of Philosophy 1 (2):5-17.
Mark T. Nelson (1998). Bertrand Russell's Defence of the Cosmological Argument. American Philosophical Quarterly 35 (1):87-100.
Michael Davis (1985). Interested Vegetables, Rational Emotions, and Moral Status. Philosophy Research Archives 11:531-550.
Bokyoung Son & Yeonoh Son (2008). The Principle of Human Essence. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 17:423-429.
Quentin Smith (forthcoming). Reply to Vallicella: Heidegger and Idealism. International Philosophical Quarterly.
Marianna Papastephanou (2000). Ulysses' Reason, Nobody's Fault: Reason, Subjectivity and the Critique of Enlightenment. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26 (6):47-59.
Andrew Chitty (1997). First Person Plural Ontology and Praxis. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 97 (1):81–96.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads9 ( #148,863 of 1,096,455 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #45,639 of 1,096,455 )
How can I increase my downloads?