David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
This paper defends the Meinongian thesis that “there are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects,” re: fictitious and illusory objects. I first formulate the problem of negative existentials in a novel way, and discuss why this new version is more forceful against anti-Meinongians. Additional data is then raised to vex anti-Meinongians—e.g., the truth of ‘Pegasus is imaginary’, and a reading of ‘There actually are illusory objects’ where it comes out true. The Meinongian, in contrast, easily and uniformly explains the same data, by allowing the existence Pegasus, pink elephants, and the like. But contra Meinong, these cases suggest that the nonexistent objects are mind-dependent objects, and I clarify and defend this suggestion from several objections. The resulting Meinongianism is thus “conservative” in that it merely acknowledges the sense in which there are mind-dependent objects, imaginary and illusory objects being prime examples. Of special note, the “ideology” is conservative as well in that the typical Meinongian jargon of “nuclear” or “encoded” properties is paraphrased away. I end by arguing that it is presumptive to use Occham’s razor against Meinongian objects, since this would assume we can achieve empirical adequacy without them. Yet this assumption is now seen as contentious, in light of the data provided.
|Keywords||Meinong non-existent objects negative existentials definite descriptions and descriptivism fictionalism and pretense theory Kripke and rigid designators existence and mind independence ontology and quantification Occam's or Ockham's razor and parsimony possible, impossible objects|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
William J. Rapaport (forthcoming). Non-Existent Objects and Epistemological Ontology. Grazer Philosophische Studien 25:61-95.
William J. Rapaport (1991). Meinong, Alexius; I: Meinongian Semantics. In Hans Burkhardt & Barry Smith (eds.), Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology. Philosophia Verlag.
Francesco Berto (2008). Modal Meinongianism for Fictional Objects. Metaphysica 9 (2):205-218.
David W. Smith (1975). Meinongian Objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien 1:43-71.
Arkadiusz Chrudzimski (2007). Meinong’s Version of the Description Theory. Russell 27 (1):73-85.
Thomas Hofweber (2000). Quantification and Non-Existent Objects. In T. Hofweber & A. Everett (eds.), Empty Names, Fiction, and the Puzzles of Non-Existence. Csli Publications.
Maciej Sendłak (2012). Wyglądy, identyczność i przedmioty nieistniejące. Diametros 31:56-87.
Nicholas Griffin (1979). The Independence of Sosein From Sein. Grazer Philosophische Studien 9:23-34.
Jacek Paśniczek (1995). Are Contradictions Still Lurking in Meinongian Theories of Objects? Grazer Philosophische Studien 50:293-303.
Tim Rode (1987). An "Indifferent Presentation". Grazer Philosophische Studien 29:129-143.
Gabriele Contessa (2009). Who is Afraid of Imaginary Objects? In Nicholas Griffin & Dale Jacquette (eds.), Russell Vs. Meinong: The Legacy of "On Denoting". Routledge.
Richard Routley (1976). I. The Durability of Impossible Objects. Inquiry 19 (1-4):247 – 251.
Rudolf Haller (1983). Friedlands Sterne Oder Facta Und Ficta. Erkenntnis 19 (1-3):153 - 165.
Karel Lambert (1974). Impossible Objects. Inquiry 17 (1-4):303 – 314.
Added to index2011-01-11
Total downloads93 ( #10,308 of 1,089,047 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #10,079 of 1,089,047 )
How can I increase my downloads?