David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 159 (1):139-146 (2012)
I advance an objection to Graham Priest’s account of fictional entities as nonexistent objects. According to Priest, fictional characters do not have, in our world, the properties they are represented as having; for example, the property of being a bank clerk is possessed by Joseph K. not in our world but in other worlds. Priest claims that, in this way, his theory can include an unrestricted principle of characterization for objects. Now, some representational properties attributed to fictional characters, a kind of fictional entities, involve a crucial reference to the world in which they are supposed to be instantiated. I argue that these representational properties are problematic for Priest’s theory and that he cannot accept an unrestricted version of the principle of characterization. Thus, while not refuting Priest’s theory, I show that it is no better off than other Meinongian theories.
|Keywords||Fictional objects Non-existence Principle of characterization Graham priest Noneism Fiction Possible worlds|
|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
Terence Parsons (1980). Nonexistent Objects. Yale University Press.
Graham Priest (2005). Towards Non-Being. Clarendon Press.
Diane Proudfoot (2006). Possible Worlds Semantics and Fiction. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (1):9 - 40.
Peter van Inwagen (1977). Creatures of Fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (4):299 - 308.
Kendall L. Walton (1990). Mimesis as Make-Believe: On the Foundations of the Representational Arts. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Daniel Hunter (1981). Reference and Meinongian Objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien 14:23-36.
Francesco Berto (2008). Modal Meinongianism for Fictional Objects. Metaphysica 9 (2):205-218.
Anthony Everett (2007). Pretense, Existence, and Fictional Objects. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):56–80.
Umberto Eco (2009). On the Ontology of Fictional Characters. Sign Systems Studies 37 (1-2):82-97.
Stuart Brock (2010). The Creationist Fiction: The Case Against Creationism About Fictional Characters. Philosophical Review 119 (3):337-364.
Terence Parsons (1975). A Meinongian Analysis of Fictional Objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien 1:73-86.
Erich Rast (2010). Classical Possibilism and Fictional Objects. In Franck Lihoreau (ed.), Fiction in Philosophy.
Amie L. Thomasson (2003). Fictional Characters and Literary Practices. British Journal of Aesthetics 43 (2):138-157.
Jacek Gurczyński (2011). Deflacyjne (redukcyjne) koncepcje przedmiotów fikcyjnych. Przegląd i analiza. Filozofia Nauki 1.
Gabriele Contessa (2010). Scientific Models and Fictional Objects. Synthese 172 (2):215 - 229.
Francesco Berto (2011). Modal Meinongianism and Fiction: The Best of Three Worlds. Philosophical Studies 152 (3):313-35.
Amie L. Thomasson (2003). Speaking of Fictional Characters. Dialectica 57 (2):205–223.
Alberto Voltolini (2013). A Syncretistic Ontology of Fictional Beings. In T. Koblizek, P. Kot'atko & M. Pokorny (eds.), Text + Work: The Menard Case. Litteraria Pragensia. 89-108.
Added to index2011-01-10
Total downloads80 ( #16,326 of 1,101,178 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #23,055 of 1,101,178 )
How can I increase my downloads?