PROOF COVER SHEET Journal acronym: RIPH Author(s): Alberto Voltolini Article title: There are Intentionalia of Which it is True that Such Objects Do Not Exist Article no: 788267 Enclosures: 1) Query sheet 2) Article proofs Dear Author, 1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production process. Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for publication. Please limit changes at this stage to the correction of errors. You should not make insignificant changes, improve prose style, add new material, or delete existing material at this stage. Making a large number of small, non-essential corrections can lead to errors being introduced. We therefore reserve the right not to make such corrections. For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp 2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed. Sequence Prefix Given name (s) Surname Suffix 1 Alberto Voltolini Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs. AUTHOR QUERIES General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in your article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check that any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this. AQ1 Please supply name(s) of editor(s). AQ2 Please supply name(s) of editor(s). AQ3 Please supply name(s) of editor(s). AQ4 Any update on publication status? AQ5 Any update on publication status? AQ6 Please supply name(s) of editor(s). AQ7 Is the spelling of the title correct (Intensional, not Intentional)? AQ8 First paragraph deleted as it duplicated the abstract, OK? AQ9 Husserl 1984 – should this be 1948? AQ10 Parsons 1980 – please supply publication details for the References list. AQ11 This reference doesn't seem to be cited – can it be deleted?

There are Intentionalia of Which it is True that Such Objects Do Not Exist 5Alberto Voltolini Abstract According to Crane's schematicity thesis (ST) about intentional objects, intentionalia have no particular metaphysical nature qua thought-of enti10ties; moreover, the real metaphysical nature of intentionalia is various, insofar as it is settled independently of the fact that intentionalia are targets of one's thought. As I will point out, ST has the ontological consequence that the intentionalia that really belong to the general inventory of what there is, the overall domain, are those that fall under a good meta15physical kind, i.e., a kind such that its members figure (for independent reasons) in such an inventory. Negatively put, if there are no things of a certain metaphysical kind, thoughts about things of that kind are not really committed to such things. Pace Crane, however, this does not mean that the intentionalia that are really there are only those that exist. For 20existence, qua first-order property, is no metaphysical kind. Thus, there may really be intentionalia that do not exist, provided that they belong to good metaphysical kinds. Keywords: intentionality; non-existent objects; intentional objects; ontology; Tim Crane 25 The structure of this paper is as follows. In x 1, I will present Crane's conception of intentional objects as schematic objects. In x 2, I will outline two main consequences of Crane's schematism, one ontological and the other metaphysical: first, that there really are only some intentio30nalia, i.e., those that fall under good metaphysical kinds, and second, that thoughts about the intentionalia that are really not there involve no relation at all to such objects. In x 3, I will say that Crane's criterion to ontologically 'divide' genuine thought-of entities from merely pseudothought-of entities – or better, to divide thoughts that are really related 35to intentionalia from thoughts that are not such – in terms of the existence vs. nonexistence of the relevant intentionalia is different from the criterion I provide, which appeals to whether an intentionale falls or not under a good category. For there are intentionalia that fall under a AQ8 International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 2013 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09672559.2013.788267  2013 Taylor & Francis RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial good category and yet do not exist. Finally in x 4, I will try to answer 5 some objections to my ontological criterion. 1. Intentional Objects as Schematic Entities In recent works (2001a, 2001b; see also 2012), Tim Crane has maintained that intentional objects, the objects intentional states, or thoughts,1 are about, are schematic objects; as Crane says, 'intentional objects [...] are 10 [...] objects in a schematic sense' (2001a, p. 17). This is a metaphysical thesis, i.e., a thesis on the nature of an entity, or as it may also be formulated, a thesis on what kind of entities some entities are, provided that there are any;2 specifically, a thesis on the nature of intentionalia. According to this thesis – let me call it the schematicity thesis (ST) – insofar as they are 15 thought-of, intentionalia have no particular nature. In other words, qua target of a thought, what that thought is about, an intentionale has no nature. Intentionalia are therefore not merely intentional objects, if this means that intentionalia are so-called objects-of-thought, i.e., entities of a 20 particular nature, which can further be grasped by a given metaphysical theory. Classical examples of how one can conceive intentionalia as mere intentionalia are the following. First of all, intentionalia may be taken as immanent entities à la Brentano (1924) – i.e., entities that both modally and temporally depend for their own being on the being of the thoughts 25 that conceive them: necessarily, if there is an intentionale, then there is the thought that conceives it; that intentionale perdures for as long as that thought does. Alternatively, intentionalia may be taken as abstract entities, i.e., entities that necessarily fail to have either a spatiotemporal location or genuine causal powers, for they necessarily have either a non30 spatiotemporal dimension or non-genuine causal powers – in Meinong's (1971) terms, they subsist.3 These abstracta may be further taken to be either thought-independent entities, free idealities – Zalta (1988) – or thought-dependent entities, at least in the already explained modal sense, bound idealities (Thomasson, 1999; McGinn, 2004; Moltmann, 2012).4 35 Yet Crane's thesis does not rule out that intentionalia do have natures; simply, it states that they do not have such natures as intentionalia. This means that one can think of objects of whatever metaphysical kind – the category, to use with Crane a different and venerable word for such a kind – she likes. Simply, the fact that an object is an object of that kind 40 is not determined by the fact that one thinks of it. So, ST has not only a negative but also a positive side, stating that intentionalia have various natures that are settled utterly independently of the fact that such intentionalia are thought of. As Crane himself points out, one can think of concrete individuals – Jimmy Carter – as well as of events – the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 2 5Iraq–Iran war; moreover, one can also think of things belonging to an institutional world, such as nations – Iraq, Iran – and so on. All these objects are different in nature, they fall under different categories, but they are not different insofar as they are all thought-of.5 2. Consequences of Schematism6 10I think Crane's conception of intentionalia as schematic objects has a number of theoretical advantages. From the metaphysical point of view, it seems to me the right way to approach the issue of what are intentionalia. As Sainsbury (2010) also points out, to postulate a new metaphysical class of exotica in order to account for the 'directionality' of our thoughts sounds 15rather ad hoc. Yet I also think that ST, taken as the idea that the nature of an intentionale is not settled by its being thought-of, has some consequences one of which, as I shall try to show, may not be welcomed by Crane. To begin with, ST has an epistemological consequence: the nature of an intentionale is not transparent to the subject who thinks of it, in the 20sense that one can be wrong as to the nature of an intentionale one is thinking of. Consider mythological entities, such as the old Greek gods or Santa Claus. In thinking of them, believers in them erroneously take them to be entities belonging (at least also) to the natural world, whereas in point of fact they are fictional entities of a particular kind; 25namely, ficta that do not depend on a particular creator (you can trace back Sherlock Holmes to Conan Doyle and Anna Karenina to Leo Tolstoy, yet the creative processes of Apollo and Santa Claus are, as Thomasson (1999) would put it, diffuse).7 Although Crane does not say anything about this consequence, I think 30he would have no qualms in endorsing it. Yet more interestingly for my present purposes, ST also has, along with some other ontological theses on categories, an ontological consequence. Suppose we take ST in its positive import – namely, that intentionalia have various natures, i.e., fall under different categories, each of which is settled independently of their 35being thought of. Suppose moreover that, from an ontological point of view, it turns out that, in the general inventory of what there is, the overall domain,8 there are no things of the category an intentionale falls under. Hence, in that domain there utterly are no intentionalia of that category. Vice versa, suppose that things of that category figure in that 40domain; then, in that domain there also are intentionalia of that category.9 For instance, suppose that – to stick to one of Crane's own examples – one thinks of Jimmy Carter, who is (at least) a concrete entity. Since concrete entities figure in the overall domain, then in that domain there really is an individual identical with Jimmy Carter. Yet 45now suppose that one thinks of Jimmy's imaginary companion, what THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 3 Jimmy pretended to play with when he was a kid; let me call it Jommy. Metaphysically speaking, entia imaginaria are posits of mere imagination, typical mind-dependent entities if there are any. Since we don't have entia imaginaria in our overall domain – what figures in such a domain is 5 just a child's pretend play with them – then there is really no such thing as Jommy.10 Thus, not all objects of thought are admitted in the overall domain, only those that fall under so to speak to good metaphysical kinds, to categories whose members are in that domain. A further metaphysical 10 consequence of this overall predicament is that defenders of ST have to tell a credible story as to what the structure of thoughts really is. Phenomenologically speaking, it sounds as if, insofar as it has an intentional object, any thought has a given relational structure, i.e., it involves a relation with one such intentionale. Yet since at least in the case in 15 which a thought has an intentional object that is not admitted in the overall domain there really is no such thing, and moreover, there obviously cannot be relations without relata, that phenomenological appearance cannot match the real structure of that thought. Adverbialists à la Kriegel (2008) would say that, despite its relational 20 appearance, for that thought to be about an intentionale when there really is no such thing amounts for that thought to merely having a certain monadic property; such a property can be further described in adverbialist terms. So in apparently thinking of Jommy, Carter's imaginary companion, one is merely thinking jommywise.11 Now, Crane 25 shares Kriegel's idea that, for the aforementioned reasons, being about an intentional object is not a relational property.12 Yet he is not that radical. According to him, when it turns out that there really is no intentionale a given thought is about, then that thought can still be sorted out as that particular thought in terms of that intentionale. As he 30 puts it, the fact that two thoughts are about different intentionalia that are such that there really are no such things 'does not mean that the thoughts are the same' (2001a, p. 25); although both such intentionalia are nothing, the first thought is about the first intentionale, the second thought is about the second intentionale.13 To be sure, Crane goes on 35 saying, the real structure of any such thought is not a relational structure involving that intentionale as the right-hand-side member of the relation, for the really is no such thing. Nevertheless, one can still legitimately hold that the real structure of that thought is relational. For, although there really is no such intentionale, that thought is anyway related to an 40 intentional content. So, when a thinker thinks about Jommy, provided that there is really no such thing as Jommy, that thinker is merely related via her thought to a certain Jommyian intentional content. Moreover, in order not to have two different types of thoughts – a thought whose structure contains a relation of its bearer to no thing, a INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 4 5thought whose structure contains a relation of such a bearer to a genuine thing – for Crane the same holds also in the case in which an intentionale really figures in the overall domain. Although in such a case the thought is effectively related to such an entity – the thought refers to it, as he has put it recently14 – the structure of that thought remains the same as 10before, i.e., a bearer-thought-content structure.15 In point of fact, Crane's story is reminiscent both of the early Husserl's (1984) and of Searle's (1983) approach to intentionality, according to which the only intentionalia that there are are those that exist. Whenever one entertains a thought, she is related via that thought to a certain intentional content. This is 15the real relation that always holds as far as a thought is concerned and characterizes its structure. If there really is no intentionale for that thought, that's the end of the story. Yet if there really is such an intentionale, then one is also indirectly related in her thought to that intentionale, via the fact that the intentional content of that thought 20somehow singles out that very intentionale. Now, Crane is right in holding that, at least whenever it turns out that there really is no intentionale a thought is related to, the thought's real structure is different from what it appears to be – it involves an intentional content rather than an intentional object.16 Yet he is not right in 25drawing the line of division between thoughts that are really related to intentionalia and thoughts that are only seemingly such in terms of the existence of the relevant intentional object. For, as we will see in the next section, endorsing the aforementioned ontological consequence that follows from ST in its positive import, along with the fact that there are 30good categories, amounts to a way of drawing the above line that is not identical with Crane's own way. 3. Are Intentionalia that Do Not Exist Mere Façons de Parler? As we have just seen, Crane surely endorses the last metaphysical consequence, namely that at least whenever a thought is about an intentionale 35that is not in the overall domain, that thought's structure involves no relation with that intentionale. Yet he does not seem to also endorse the previous ontological consequence, namely the one stemming out of ST in its positive import. I said that the only intentionalia that are really there are those that fall under good categories; since things falling under 40any such category are in the overall domain, a fortiori there are the things so categorized that are also thought of. Yet although Crane accepts that there is a divide between thoughts that are about intentionalia that are really there and thoughts that are about intentionalia that are such that there really are no such things, he draws that divide where the 45early Husserl and Searle actually put it. That is, when the intentionale is AQ9 THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 5 an existent thing, then there really is such a thing, so that the relevant thought is really related to it (via the proper intentional content). Yet when the intentionale is a nonexistent thing, then there really is no such thing; existent intentionalia are the only intentionalia that there are. 5 Hence, in that case the relevant thought is really related only to a given intentional content. For instance, suppose Leverrier thinks of Neptune, the planet posited in order to explain the perturbation of Uranus' orbits. Since Neptune really exists, then there really is such a thing, so that Leverrier is really related to it in his thinking of it (via the proper 10 Neptunian intentional content). Yet now suppose Leverrier thinks of Vulcan, the alleged planet posited in order to explain the perturbation of Mercury's orbits. Since Vulcan does not really exist – that perturbation can be alternatively accounted for, e.g. via Einstein's theory of relativity – then there really is no such a thing. Now, Leverrier's thought can 15 still be sorted out as a thought of Vulcan. Yet since there really is no such a thing as Vulcan, that thought is utterly not related to it, it is merely related to a Vulcanian intentional content. So for Crane, it is not good categories, but it is existence that makes the 'divide' between ontologically acceptable and ontologically inacceptable intentionalia. Let 20 me reframe this point in more proper terms, in order not to give the misleading impression that there is a line separating things in two groups, the intentionalia that are genuine things and those that are just fake things – the line simply divides thoughts that are related to intentionalia from thoughts that are not such. For Crane, it is the existence of 25 an intentional object, rather than its falling under a good category, that lets that intentionale to be admitted in the overall ontological domain. Now, if this is the way for Crane to draw such an ontological 'divide' between genuine thought-of things, i.e., intentionalia that exist – say, Neptune – and pseudothought-of things, i.e., intentionalia that fail to 30 exist – say, Vulcan – existence has to be conceived as a first-order property, a property of individuals.17 In the history of philosophy, two main candidates have been proposed for existence as such a first-order property: either having a spatiotemporal location, an idea recently reprised by Williamson (1990, 2002), or 35 being straightforwardly involved with a worldly causal order, in the sense of both producing and undergoing effects (in short, having genuine casual powers), a suggestion coming from Plato down to Meinong (1971) and Castañeda (1989). The first candidate entails the second – things spatiotemporally located are endowed with genuine causal powers – yet 40 it is not clear whether the entailment holds also in the opposite direction, since it is not that clear whether having genuine causal powers involves being spatiotemporally located.18 Granted, regardless of how existence as a first-order property is understood, it may seem strange to say that Crane's ontological 'divide' INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 6 5between intentionalia that are genuine entities and intentionalia that are not such presupposes that he appeals to existence so conceived, for he never positively endorses such a conception. Rather (at least in 2001a, 2001b), he explicitly endorses Quine's (1948) stance on ontology, according to which to be is to be the value of a (bound) variable.19 Apart from 10Quine's nominalism, this is the typical Frege–Russell conception of existence as a second-order property, according to which a thing of a certain kind exists if, in the general inventory of what there is, there are things of that kind, or in other terms, that kind has instantiations. Yet this is not the end of the matter. First of all, Crane explicitly 15recognizes that the Meinongian thesis according to which 'some intentional objects do not exist', to which he himself seems somehow to be committed, is at least perfectly understandable.20 More recently, he has even said that the thesis is true; or better, true at most in some sense, for he also adds that, properly speaking, there are no nonexistent 20intentionalia. As he explicitly says, 'it is not the case that there is anything corresponding to the quoted words [i.e., 'Pegasus', 'unicorns']. The words have no reference: there are no unicorns, and no Pegasus' (2001a, p. 25).21 Now, whatever Crane believes on the Meinongian reading of the Meinongian thesis,22 in order for the above sentence expressing that 25thesis to be both understandable and merely in a sense true, in it 'exist' must mean a first-order, not a second-order, property, as Meinongians hold. Otherwise, that saying would be contradictory (it would per impossibile mean 'there are some intentional objects that are such that there are no such objects'). Or, if it meant something utterly different, such as 30'there are thoughts that involve no relation to things', as Crane suggests,23 then for him it would not be something merely understandable and at most true in a sense; it would have to be true, period. As I have just hinted at, Crane ultimately denies the Meinongian thesis; 'I reject it', he says (2001a, p. 25). Properly speaking, in fact, for him 35it is not really true; if you like, if it is true it is such only at a preliminary level – at a way of looking things that at most mirrors a phenomenological approach to reality; but it is not really true, at the very ground level of how things really are.24 Now, the fact that Crane ultimately rejects the Meinongian thesis might be taken as further evidence to show that 40he does not endorse the idea that existence is a first-order property. Yet for him to hold that the Meinongian thesis is not really true is to hold the negation of that thesis, namely the claim that there are no nonexistent intentionalia, i.e., that it is not the case that there are intentionalia that do not exist – e.g., it is not the case that there is a nonexistent 45intentionale to which the word 'Vulcan' refers.25 But if this claim is the denial of the Meinongian thesis, i.e., its negation, then it obviously preserves the intelligibility of the latter thesis by taking it as (really) false. As a result, in it the predicate 'exists' must again mean a firstTHERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 7 order property of existence. For simply the anti-Meinongian claim 5 amounts to saying that, pace Meinongians, the property in question is universal – it applies to all things in the overall domain – i.e., it is not such that, as Meinongians believe, it applies to some but not to all things in that domain. (More or less, the predicament here is the same as when one says 'there are no unopened cans in the fridge', meaning – against a 10 possible opponent of hers – that it is not the case that in the fridge there are cans that are not open).26 Put in another way, in order for the sentence 'it is not the case that there are intentionalia that do not exist' to work as a denial of the Meinongian thesis 'there are intentionalia that do not exist', it cannot be a sheer tautology. But it would be such if in it 15 'exist' meant a second-order property; the sentence would trivially say that there are no intentionalia that are such that there are no such objects. At any rate, since Crane manifestly thinks that appealing to a firstorder property of existence is inessential in ontological matters, let me 20 put into brackets whether he is really committed to such a property. The point remains that the two afore-mentioned criteria for having merely some intentionalia within the overall domain – Crane's criterion: existence vs. nonexistence of an intentionale; my criterion: an intentionale's falling under a good category versus an intentionale's failing to fall under 25 it – are not identical. Moreover, the only plausible way to explain this criterial difference is to say that an intentionale may well fall under a good category, hence it may well belong to the overall ontological domain, and yet fail to exist, in the only possible sense in which this way of saying is intelligible; namely, the Meinongian reading that commits 30 one to existence as a first-order property. So, what ultimately makes the ontological 'divide' is not having versus not having our first-order property of existence, but rather, once again, falling under rather than not falling under a good category. Let me expand on this. To begin with, let us go back to Crane. For him, the fact that we 35 cannot accept intentionalia as such in the overall domain is just another way to see that, as ST states, being an intentional object is no category at all. For, according to him, in order for a kind to be a category, all its members must exist. This is not the case as far as the kind being an intentional object is concerned, for its putative members are both existent 40 and nonexistent. Thus, as soon as we discover a category under which a certain intentionale falls, we eo ipso have it ontologically at our disposal; as Crane puts it, if an intentional object falls under a certain category, then it exists. Yet conversely, if an intentional object does not exist, then it falls under no category, 'for all members of a given category exist' 45 (2001a, p. 17), hence it is ontologically rejected. According to this way of putting things, all categories are trivially good categories: all categories make it the case that their members figure INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 8 in the overall ontological domain. Yet this does not seem to be the case. For, as I said before by appealing to entia imaginaria, there are catego5ries whose (putative) members are not admitted in such a domain. In this respect, entia imaginaria are just a case in point; disembodied souls, entelechies, hypostases and other philosophers' dreams may be others. Now, Crane might accept this point by simply saying that bad categories (like entia imaginaria) are those whose members do not exist, where 10'exist' supposedly means the second-order property. If this were the case, then the two ontological criteria for having only some intentionalia in the overall domain – existence vs. nonexistence of an intentionale; an intentionale's falling under a good category vs. failing to fall under it – would be the same one. But, pace Crane, they are not the same crite15rion: indeed, there are intentionalia that fall under a good category and yet do not exist. Moreover, there is just one way to understand what I have just said: namely, that in the overall domain there are intentionalia – which thereby fall under good categories – that however fail to possess a certain first-order property of existence. If in saying 'there are intentio20nalia – which thereby fall under good categories – that do not exist' the verb 'exists' did not mean that property, but the second-order one, what I say would again be merely contradictory – as if I said that certain intentionalia both fall and do not fall under good categories.27 Let me now argue for the point just stated above – briefly, that there 25are intentionalia that do not exist in a first-order sense – by generalizing it, namely by showing that as a first-order property, existence is not necessary for something, whether it is thought-of or not, to be admitted in the overall domain (or conversely, nonexistence is not a sufficient criterion in order for something to be banned from that domain). There 30indeed are things that belong to the overall domain yet they do not exist. Consider again Neptune and Vulcan. From the metaphysical point of view, they are both concrete entities, i.e., as Cocchiarella (1982) puts it, entities that may have either spatiotemporal location or genuine causal powers. Given the above characterizations of existence as first-order 35property, Neptune actually has such location or powers insofar as it actually exists, Vulcan actually fails to have such location or powers insofar as it does not actually exist. So, they have the same nature, although the first actually exists and the second does not. Hence, either their shared category, being concrete, makes both of them to figure in the overall 40domain, or neither entity is admitted in such a domain. Since we clearly admit concreta in the above sense, we then have at our disposal both Neptune and Vulcan, although only the former exists in a first-order sense. As a result, qua first-order property, existence fails to ontologically distinguish between them.28 45To be sure, one may have qualms in conceiving of Vulcan as a concretum that is a mere possibile, i.e., as an entity that might have existed THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 9 although it actually fails to exist. Is Vulcan not simply a false theoretical posit, hence something which rather falls on the side of abstracta rather than on that of concreta?29 Well, if one has problems with the example, 5 just change it. Consider Willy-Volly, the mere possible suit made of one of Tim Williamson's jackets and of a pairs of trousers of mine.30 This is precisely a mere possibile in the above sense, which moreover is as much a concretum as one of Tim Williamson's actual suits. To say that existence is not a necessary condition for figuring in the 10 overall domain does not obviously entail that nonexistence is a sufficient condition in order for something to figure in that domain. Some of the nonexistents figure in the domain, some other do not. Once again, it's belonging to the good category that 'wears the trousers' in this respect. Consider again Willy-Volly, and in addition both the Platonic ideal Bed 15 and Twardy, the impossible wooden cannon made out of steel (this example comes from Twardowski [1982/1894]). All of them do not exist in our first-order sense. Yet from the metaphysical point of view, they are different entities. As I said, the first is a concretum that is a mere possibile, an entity that actually fails to exist although it might have 20 existed. The second is the prototype of an abstract entity, i.e., an entity that necessarily fails to have either genuine causal powers or spatiotemporal location. The third is an impossibile, i.e. an entity that not only does not actually exist, but also it might not have existed. So, these three entities do not belong to the same metaphysical kind. Now, as we have 25 already seen, concreta, both actual and possible, are legitimate entities; mere failure to actually exist does not provide good reasons to reject them (cf. Williamson, 1998; Voltolini, 2007). This is also the case of at least some abstracta, typically bound idealities, such as fictional entities, which are a species of bound idealities (cf. Thomasson [1999] and Volto30 lini [2006b] for attempts at providing reasons for accepting them). Yet impossibilia are non-legitimate entities, since we have serious grounds to get rid of them: as Russell (1905a, 1905b) insisted, they violate Excluded Middle in its propositional form.31 Now, as we just saw, all these metaphysically different entities – concreta that are mere possibilia, abstracta, 35 impossibilia – do not exist, in our first-order sense. Yet, even nonexistence does not distinguish among them which is a genuine entity – something that does belong to the overall domain – and which is just a pseudo-entity – something that does not figure in that domain. What counts is that being impossible, unlike both being concrete and being 40 abstract, is a bad category: there is nothing impossible that figures in that domain. If all this is correct, then the 'divide' between genuine entities (figuring in the overall domain) and pseudo-entities (not figuring in it) does not coincide with the divide between existent and nonexistent 45 entities (a real divide between genuine entities, at this point), hence a INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 10 fortiori between existent and nonexistent intentionalia. In order for something to be a genuine entity, that something must fall under a category whose members belong to the overall domain. This is utterly independent of whether that very something exists or not in a first-order 5sense. For existence in that sense is no metaphysical kind. Thus, if we think of Santa Claus, insofar as we have ficta in the overall domain, then there really is such a thing as Santa, although it does not exist. Yet since we do not have impossibilia, then independently of the fact that Twardy, the impossible wooden cannon made out of steel we were talking about 10before, does not exist, there is no such a thing as Twardy. Of course, it may be questionable which category is good and which is bad. A good category is a category whose members figure in the ontological domain; yet it may be controversial whether one category is really a good one. For one thing, contrary to what I claimed before, 15many people believe that there are no such things as ficta; some people even believe that there are impossibilia.32 But this is part of the ordinary philosophical debate in ontology; ontological arguments or other kinds of evidence have to be provided in order to show that a category is good (or bad). Now, my thesis that only an intentionale that falls under a good 20category figures in the overall domain is obviously conditional on the premise that the relevant category is a good one. Should it turn out (by means of the above arguments or other kinds of evidence) that such a category is not good, that intentionale would not figure in that domain. As a further result, we would be forced to reject a story saying that the 25structure of the thought about it is made inter alia by a relation to that intentionale. 4. Objections and Replies On behalf of Crane, one may first of all point out that, in order for something to figure in the overall domain, what is required is simply, à la 30Quine, that the kind that very something allegedly falls under is instantiated. That kind must not be a metaphysical kind, something for whose instantiation an a priori demonstration is required; an empirical kind, something that calls for a posteriori search, may well suit ontological needs. For example, in order to positively answer the question of whether 35there are platypuses, a typical empirical kind, one simply needs to look and see; if that a posteriori search is satisfied then the overall domain will include things that are platypuses, and that's all. So, even if to exist in our first-order sense were no metaphysical kind, this would not mean that it does not work as a (discriminative) ontological criterion. 40To begin with, I hold that although being existent, in our first-order sense, is not a metaphysical kind, it is a sui generis empirical kind. All THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 11 empirical kinds are existence-entailing properties, for instance being a platypus entails to exist in our first-order sense. Hence, looking for existent things is quite a trivial matter – it is enough to find instantiations of 5 any empirical kind whatsoever. Patently, moreover, in order to admit things falling under an empirical kind, we have already to accept things of the metaphysical kind an empirical kind specifies. For instance, in order to admit platypuses, we have already to have concreta in the overall domain. If we were solipsists, we would admit just disembodied 10 souls – possibly, ourselves only; hence, we would not have concreta in the overall domain, a fortiori we would not have platypuses. So, even if existence were an empirical kind, it would not ultimately be in terms of its possession that something would figure in the overall domain. Finally, if an aposteriori search gives us instantiations of an empirical kind F, it 15 does not obviously allow us to reject putative things that are not F – e.g. non-platypuses cannot be ruled out that way (I, for one, am a non-platypus). A fortiori, no a posteriori search can allow us to reject nonexistent things. Indeed, as we saw before, it is not in virtue of its nonexisting that something can be legitimately banned from the overall domain. 20 Here one must be very careful. True enough, an a posteriori search can well help us to reject fountains of youth as well as golden mountains.33 But if such a search has that ontologically negative outcome, this depends on the fact that those properties are existence-entailing ones; thus, there is neither a fountain of youth nor a golden mountain, for 25 there is neither an entity that is both existent and a fountain of youth, nor an entity that is both existent and a golden mountain either. Thus, it is not because they do not exist that such putative entities are rejected. Rather, they are rejected because only things that exist can possess the properties of being a fountain of youth or of being a golden mountain, so 30 there is no entity which both does not exist and is either a fountain of youth or a golden mountain.34 Another objection to my point against existence as a metaphysical kind comes from the remark that it is notoriously hard to find a divide between metaphysical and non-metaphysical kinds. Tables of categories 35 are hardly convincing.35 For example, I have previously treated being concrete as a metaphysical kind, by defining it as being possibly such that it has either a spatiotemporal location or genuine causal powers. Now, as we have seen before being such that it has either a spatiotemporal location or genuine causal powers is actually tantamount to being 40 existent. If being existent is, as I have claimed, no metaphysical kind, why should being possibly existent be one such kind? In general, if being F is no metaphysical kind, being possibly F is no such kind either. For instance, being a fisherman is not a metaphysical kind, but neither is being a possible fisherman. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 12 5True enough, some more work should be done in order to characterize a metaphysical kind so as to distinguish it from other such kinds. For instance, intuitively speaking being abstract and being impossible are two such kinds. But if one limits oneself to qualifying them in terms of having necessarily either no spatiotemporal location or no genuine 10causal powers, i.e., of having impossibly either spatiotemporal location or genuine causal powers, then one fails to distinguish between such kinds. This is why one must add, as I did before, that unlike impossibilia, abstracta have necessarily either no spatiotemporal location or no genuine causal powers insofar as they necessarily have a non-spatiotemporal 15dimension or non-genuine causal powers, i.e., insofar as they necessarily subsist.36 Furthermore and more interestingly for my present purposes, some more work should be done in order to properly qualify a kind as a metaphysical one. For the time being, however, it is enough for me to sketch a necessary condition in order for a kind to be a metaphysical 20kind: in order for a kind to be a metaphysical kind, one must perform an independent a priori investigation in order to settle whether that kind has instantiations, that is, an investigation that is neither an a posteriori search nor an a priori search that depends on some previous investigation of the same type.37 So, not only no empirical scrutiny can help us in 25settling the question e.g. of whether there are fictional entities or numbers, but also one cannot argue e.g. for possible fishermen unless one has already argued for possible existents in our first-order sense (cf. Voltolini, 2007). So far, so good. Yet one might trace back to Crane an argument to 30the effect that being nonexistent is an ontologically bad metaphysical kind (and conversely, being existent is a good such kind). Some of the things he says as regards nonexistent intentionalia may indeed be taken precisely as going along this direction. First of all, he appeals to the well-known Geach (19822) problem of intentional identity: is there a 35nonexistent individual that both Hob and Nob take to be a witch such that Hob thinks she has blighted Bob's mare and Nob wonders whether she has killed Cob's sow? This question, Crane claims, seems to have no definite answer. For there seem to be no fact of the matter as to whether such different thinkers think of the same nonexistent intentionale. Now 40such an indeterminacy, he also claims, only affects nonexistent intentionalia. For whenever existent intentionalia are concerned, is fairly easy to establish whether two thinkers are thinking of the same thing yet under different aspects.38 Now, one might take these claims as gesturing towards an argument showing that, since being nonexistent leads to 45ontological indeterminacy, it is an ontologically bad metaphysical kind. In a nutshell, all nonexistents are vague things, and there cannot be such thing as vague entities. THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 13 The structure of the argument I tentatively trace back to Crane is clear: (1) qua nonexistent entities, nonexistent intentionalia are ontologi5 cally indeterminate; (2) if an entity is ontologically indeterminate, then there is no such thing; thus, (3) there are no nonexistent intentionalia.39 Although premise (2) is contestable,40 I do not want to raise any question against it. It follows from Quine's dictum 'no entity without identity'. If it is indeterminate whether x and y are the same entity, then 10 there is no fact of the matter as to whether the overall domain contains either one or different entities; put alternatively, the identity of an entity is a necessary condition in order for it to belong to that domain. Quine's dictum is the reason why it is one thing to settle e.g. whether O and O' are the same fictum, quite another to settle whether there is such a 15 thing.41 Yet I reject premise (1), and I think Crane should reject it as well. If intentionalia are schematic objects in the ST sense that they have no metaphysical nature qua thought-of objects, or, positively put, the metaphysical nature of an intentionale is settled independently of its being 20 thought-of, then the identity criteria of an intentionale are given in terms of the identity criteria for entities of the category that intentionale falls under. Now, such criteria are given independently of whether not only there is such a thing as that intentionale, but also, and more importantly for my present purposes, that very intentionale exists (in our first-order 25 sense) or not. But then it is not the case that there is no fact of the matter as to whether two thinkers think of the same nonexistent intentionale or not. This depends on whether, given the category that intentionale falls under, the identity criteria for entities of that category settle whether it is the same entity the two thinkers are thinking or not. For 30 example, suppose first that by thinking of O thinker T is actually thinking of a fictum and by thinking of O' thinker T' is actually thinking of a fictum, and second, that sharing the same core properties makes O and O' the same fictum.42 Now, a fictional entity does not exist in our firstorder sense. Yet if O and O' are ficta sharing the same core properties, 35 then given the above criterion of identity for ficta there is a positive answer as to the question of whether T and T' think of the same nonexistent intentionale: they think the same fictum. So, Socrates is thinking of Zeus, which is a fictional entity whose core property is being the chief god, while Cicero is thinking of Jupiter, whose core property is 40 exactly the same. Since those ficta share the same core property, they are the same entity. Since moreover ficta do not exist in our first-order sense, then Socrates and Cicero are thinking of the same nonexistent intentionale.43 Thus, it is not the case that nonexistents are per se ontologically 45 indeterminate entities. A fortiori, if intentionalia are schematic objects, such an indeterminacy does not also hold of nonexistent intentionalia. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 14 5. Conclusion Let me sum up. Crane's metaphysical conception of intentional objects as schematic objects is definitely interesting and convincing. From this 5conception, it indirectly follows that, as Crane rightly argues, not all thoughts that are about intentionalia involve a relation with such objects; for not all intentionalia are really admitted in the overall domain. Yet the 'divide' between ontologically acceptable and ontologically inacceptable intentionalia (or better, the divide between thoughts that involve a 10relation to such objects and thoughts that only involve a relation to an intentional content) is not to be drawn where Crane puts it, namely, as a 'divide' between existent and nonexistent intentionalia. For, pace Crane, not only this way of letting only some intentionalia to be admitted in the overall domain involves a conception of existence as a first-order prop15erty, but it does not work insofar as existence is no metaphysical kind. In fact, the right way to draw that 'divide' is to appeal to a distinction between the metaphysical kinds intentionalia fall under. If an intentionale falls under a good metaphysical kind, i.e., a kind whose members are ontologically accepted, then there really is such an intentionale in the 20overall domain; if it falls under a bad metaphysical kind, i.e., a kind which is such that it has no instantiations, then there really is no such intentionale in the overall domain. Department of Philosophy and Education Sciences, University of Turin Acknowledgements 25In this paper I reprise and fully articulate points already expressed elsewhere (Voltolini, 2006a). I thank all the participants to the Workshop on Intentionality that was held at the Royal Irish Academy in Dublin on 4–5 February 2010, where this paper was originally presented, for their comments and criticisms. Moreover, let me thank Friederike 30Moltmann and above all Elisabetta Sacchi, with whom I have several times discussed these issues. Finally, let me thank both some anonymous referees and especially Rasmus Thybo Jensen for many helpful comments that have definitely helped me in clarifying my views. Notes 351 Following Crane himself (2001a, p. 39), I will here draw no difference between intentional states and intentional events, i.e., between mental particulars without a temporal part and mental particulars with a temporal part. A fortiori, I will draw no difference between intentional states or events and intentional acts, the latter traditionally counting as intentional events under 40an intentional description. Let me call thoughts all such mental particulars. 2 For this understanding of a metaphysical thesis; see for example Thomasson (1999). THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 15 3 This conception is not Meinong's. If Meinong is taken as a defender of a metaphysical approach to intentionalia as mere intentionalia, then for him intentio5 nalia are entities that neither exist nor subsist. Yet since Meinong thought that objects are given before they are thought of, then one may take him as a sort of precursor of Crane's ST (even though, unlike Crane, he would admit all intentionalia in the overall domain). In this perspective, for Meinong an intentionale may be a concrete actual entity, a concrete possible entity, a concrete 10 impossible entity, or an abstract entity, depending on which of any such entities is really thought of in the thought involving such an intentionale. 4 The distinction between free and bound idealities comes from Husserl (1948, p. 267), but it can also be found in Ingarden (1931). Following Ingarden (1931), Thomasson (1999, p. 89) literally calls mere intentionalia 'purely inten15 tional objects' and distinguishes them from ordinarily existing intentionalia. In the same vein, by mere intentionalia McGinn (2004) and Moltmann (2012) mean nonexistent intentional objects, which for them are rather mind-dependent entities. 5 Cf. Crane (2001a, pp. 15–17). 20 6 This paragraph elaborates things originally said in Voltolini (2009). 7 Cf. Thomasson (1999, pp. 7, 140, fn. 3). 8 By equating the overall domain with the general inventory of what there is, I do not mean that domain as an universe of discourse, as Crane (2011a) would be prompted to take it. For unlike an universe of discourse, the members of 25 the overall domain are genuine entities. 9 In order for this consequence to follow, when people say 'things of category C exist' (for instance, 'ficta exist'), such a saying does not have to be taken as meaning 'there is at least one C'. As Fine would put it, such a saying displays a universal, not an existential commitment, i.e. a commitment to all Cs. Thus, 30 it means 'All things of category C exist', where 'exist' expresses a first-order property of existence (cf. Fine, 2009, p. 167). In the light of what I will say later, I add that this is not a substantial, but a formal first-order property of existence: i.e., a property that is both universal and such that possessing it makes no difference for the thing that has it (for more details on this distinc35 tion between different existential first-order properties, cf. Voltolini [2012]). 10 As to entia imaginaria so conceived and the reasons for rejecting them, cf. Kroon (2011). In order to understand what follows, it is crucial that entia imaginaria are not fictional entities. 11 Kriegel (2007, 2008) says that the same also holds for an intentionale that is 40 such that there really is such a thing, such as Jimmy Carter: in apparently thinking of Jimmy, one rather thinks Jimmily. But this complication is irrelevant for my present purposes. 12 This idea is sketched in Crane (2001a, pp. 25–6) and is forcefully reprised in his later (2011b, 2012). 45 13 Crane also says that the thought is individuated in terms of its intentional object, even if turns out that there really is no such thing (cf. 2001a, p. 29). This terminology is unfortunate, for if an entity is individuated in terms of something else that something else has to figure in the overall ontological domain. Soon later in the book, Crane accepts this ontologically committed 50 sense of individuation. For he says that a thought is individuated in terms of its intentional content, where the intentional content is something the thought is really related to (so, it figures in the overall domain; cf. Crane [2001a], p. 32). So, it would have been better if Crane had resorted to an epistemological sense of individuation by saying that a thought is identified in terms of its INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 16 5intentional object, in the sense that it is by appealing to such an object that we tell that thought from any other thought. As a matter of fact, he explains individuation precisely in these terms, i.e., as 'distinguishing [an intentional state] from all others' (2001a, p. 31). Yet as I said, this is merely a terminological point. 1014 Cf. Crane (2011b), pp. 24–5. 15 Cf. Crane (2001a), pp. 28–33. 16 For the purposes of this paper, I here remain neutral as to whether, whenever there really is the object a thought is about, not only the thought is related to that object, but the real structure of that thought is made by a relation to that 15very object. For reasons to believe that, see Sacchi and Voltolini (2012). 17 This property is a substantial property, for – regardless of whether it is universal, i.e., it is possessed by all members of the overall domain – it adds something to its possessor. For more details on this point, see Voltolini (2012). 18 On this, cf. Berto (2012). 2019 Cf. Crane (2001a), p. 17. In Crane (2011a, 2012), however, he tries to put this stance aside. 20 Cf. Crane (2001a), p. 24. 21 Cf. Crane (2011a). 22 Crane (2011a) explicitly states that in order to take one such sentence as 25intelligible or even (in a sense) true, one does not have to commit to the idea that 'exists' works in it as a first-order property. Indeed, he says (2012) that a sentence like 'the round square exists' can be both intelligible and even (in a sense) true, even if it means 'there (uniquely) is a round square'. This is correct, yet if the latter sentence is conjoined to the former sentence – as fol30lows: 'there are some intentionalia that do not exist: e.g., the round square (does not exist)' – in order both for the whole conjoined sentence to be both intelligible and even (in a sense) true and for the anaphorical link in it concerning 'exists' to hold, that predicate must work as a first-order predicate throughout the whole sentence. 3523 As he himself points out (Crane 2001a, p. 25). I thank two referees for having attracted my attention to this point. 24 Cf. also Crane (2011a, 2012). 25 Cf. Crane (2001a), pp. 17, 25. 26 Cf. on this also Voltolini (2012). 4027 To be sure, Crane might reply that if we say that some intentionalia that are accepted in the overall domain and thereby exist (in the second-order sense of the predicate) do not however exist in another sense, this sense does involve a first-order property which however is not ontologically relevant; this property would just be a property F whatsoever that such intentionalia fail to 45have (c. 2001a, p. 25, for this possible reply). Yet I would retort that (1) in this predicament it would nevertheless remain a distinction between intentionalia that do not exist in the second-order sense and intentionalia that exist in the very same sense; and (2) this distinction is utterly parasitic on the distinction between intentionalia that fall under good categories and intentionalia 50that fail to fall under such categories. It is because an intentionale falls under a category whose members are accepted in the overall domain that such an intentionale exists, in the second-order sense. 28 Vulcan, of course, is just a case in point. Consider directly the case of an intentionale such as the dagger I hallucinate. Since my object of hallucination 55is a concrete object in the aforementioned sense and moreover we admit concreta, there really is such an intentionale, although it does not exist. THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 17 29 For this option, see for example Salmon (2002). 30 See Williamson (1998, p. 267) for a similar example. 31 Such impossibilia would be things that per impossibile were such that it is the 5 case that p and it is the case that not-p, not things that possess both property P and its complement non-P, i.e., entities that violate Excluded Middle in their objectual form. Such entities may well figure in the overall domain, as most Meinongians claim. On this point, see Simons (1990, pp. 182, 185). 32 For arguments against ficta, see for example Everett (2005); for supporters of 10 impossibilia, see for example Priest (2005). 33 Even Meinongians who commit themselves to Meinongian objects such as the fountain of youth or the golden mountain must play here some tricks. They have to say either that the properties involved by such objects are special properties – the so-called nuclear properties, properties belonging to the 15 respective core of those entities (Meinong, 1972; Parsons, 1980) – or that those objects well possess the ordinary properties of being a fountain of youth or of being a golden mountain, yet they possess such properties in a special mode – the so-called determining, or encoding, or internal mode (Mally, 1912; Castañeda, 1989; Rapaport, 1978; Zalta, 1983). 20 34 For believers in the aforementioned appeal to different modes of property possession (cf. previous footnote), this entailment only holds in the satisfying, or exemplifying, or external, mode, which faces the aforementioned internal mode. Hence, there may well be an entity that internally is a fountain of youth (a golden mountain) that externally fails to exist. 25 35 For an interesting attempt at constructing one such table by appealing to different dependence relations between items so categorized, cf. Thomasson (1999). 36 In this very complicated conceptual situation, one has not to be led astray by what amount to points of terminology. Earlier (in section 3), I have meta30 physically distinguished concreta from abstracta by appealing to a certain modal distinction: roughly, concreta are the entities that may exist, so that some of them actually exist while some others exist merely possibly; instead, abstracta are the entities that necessarily fail to exist. Yet one may instead make a similar tripartition by speaking of contingent concreta as flanked by, 35 respectively, contingent non-concreta and necessary abstracta (cf. Linski and Zalta, 1996). Now, any terminological choice is good, provided it captures the real distinctions between metaphysical kinds. 37 I take this way of qualifying metaphysical kinds as a mere necessary condition for being a metaphysical kind. For if this way were also meant as a suffi40 cient condition, it would rule out the standard counterexamples for sufficiency, i.e., other a priori yet not metaphysical kinds such as specific mathematic kinds, only if one believed that these latter kinds are such that in order to settle a priori whether they have instantiations one has to previously settle whether there are mathemata in general. 45 38 Cf. Crane (2001a, pp. 30–1). 39 This argument reminds similar arguments provided by actualists against mere possibilia; see for example Adams (1974). As Crane does not say that all nonexistents are indeterminate objects, the argument cannot be properly ascribed to him. 50 40 For problems with (2), see for example Routley (1982) and Williamson (2000). 41 On this, cf. Thomasson (1999). 42 For this idea, see for example Parsons (1980). AQ10 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 18 43 A similar argument may be given for thought-of mere possibilia, since there 5is a criterion of identity for such entities as well; see Zalta (1988, p. 32) and Priest (2005, p. 115). References Adams, R. (1974) 'Theories of Actuality', Noûs 8: 211–31. Berto, F. (2012) Existence as a Real Property, Dordrecth: Springer. 10Brentano, F. (1995/1924) Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt, trans. A.C. Rancurello and D.B. Terrell, London: Routledge. Castañeda, H.-N. (1989) Thinking, Language, and Experience, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cocchiarella, N. (1982) 'Meinong Reconstructed Versus Early Russell Recon15structed', Journal of Philosophical Logic 11: 183–214. Crane, T. (2001a) Elements of Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press. ------. (2001b) 'Intentional Objects', Ratio 14: 336–49. ------. (2011a) 'Existence and Quantification Reconsidered', in T.E. Tahko (ed.) Contemporary Aristotelian Metaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge Univer20sity Press. ------. (2011b) 'The Singularity of Singular Thoughts', Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85(Suppl.): 21–43. ------. (2012) 'What is the Problem of Non-Existence?', Philosophia 40: 417–34. 25Everett, A. (2005) 'Against Fictional Realism', Journal of Philosophy 102: 624–49. Fine, K. (2009) 'The Question of Ontology', in D.J. Chalmers, D. Manley and R. Wassermann (eds) Metametaphysics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Geach, P.T. (1982) 'Intentional Identity', in Logic Matters, Oxford: Blackwell. 30Husserl, E. (1972/1948) Erfahrung und Urteil, transl. J.S. Churchill and K. Ameriks, London: Routledge. ------. (1970/1922) Logische Untersuchungen, Husserliana XIX/1–2, vol. 2, Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis, transl. J.N. Findlay, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. 35Ingarden, R. (1973/1931), Das literarische Kunstwerk, transl. G.G. Grabowicz, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Kriegel, U. (2007) 'Intentional Inexistence and Phenomenal Intentionality', Philosophical Perspectives 21: 307–40. ------. (2008) 'The Dispensability of (Merely) Intentional Objects', Philo40sophical Studies 141: 79–95. Kroon, F. (2011) 'The Fiction of Creationism', in F. Lihoreau (ed.) Truth in Fiction, Munich: Ontos. Linsky, B. and E. Zalta (1996) 'In Defense of the Contingently Nonconcrete', Philosophical Studies 84: 283–94. 45Mally, E. (1912) Gegenstandtheoretische Grundlagen der Logik und Logistik, Leipzig: Barth. McGinn, C. (2004) 'The Objects of Intentionality', in Consciousness and Its Objects, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Meinong, A. (1971/1904), 'Über Gegenstandtheorie', trans. I. Levi, D.B. Terrell 50and R.M. Chisholm, in R. Chisholm (ed.) Realism and the Background of Phenomenology, New York: Free Press. AQ1 AQ11 AQ2 THERE ARE INTENTIONALIA OF WHICH IT IS TRUE THAT SUCH OBJECTS DO NOT EXIST RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial 19 ------. (1972/1916) , Über Möglichkeit und Wahrscheinlichkeit', in Gesamtausgabe vol. 6, Graz: Akademische Druckund Verlagsanstalt. Moltmann, F. (2012) 'Intentional Objects as Abstraction from Referential Acts', 5 unpublished MS. Priest, G. (2005) Towards Non-Being: the Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Quine, W.V.O. (1948) 'On What There Is', The Review of Metaphysics 48: 21–38. 10 Rapaport, W. (1978) 'Meinongian Theories and a Russellian Paradox', Noûs 12: 153–80. Routley, R. (1982) 'On What There Isn't', Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 43: 151–78. Russell, B. (1905a) 'On Denoting', Mind 14: 473–93. 15 ------. (1905b) ''Critical Notice of: A Meinong', Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandtheorie und Psychologie', Mind 14: 530–8. Sacchi, E., Voltolini, A. (2012) 'To Think Is to Have Something in One's Thought', Quaestio (forthcoming). Sainsbury, M. (2010) 'Intentionality without Exotica', in R. Jeshion (ed.) New 20 Essays on Singular Thought, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Salmon, N. (2002) 'Mythical Objects', in J.K. Campbell, M. O'Rourke and D. Shier (eds) Meaning and Truth: Investigations in Philosophical Semantics, New York: Seven Bridges Press. Searle, J.R. (1983) Intentionality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25 Simons, P. (1990) 'On What There Isn't: the Meinong-Russell Dispute', in Philosophy and Logic in Central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski, Dordrecht: Kluwer. Thomasson, A.L. (1999) Fiction and Metaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 30 Twardowski, K. (1982/1894) Zur Lehre vom Inhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellungen, Munich: Philosophia. Voltolini, A. (2006a) 'Are There (Nonexistent)', Intentionalia?, Philosophical Quarterly 56: 436–41. ------. (2006b) How Ficta Follow Fiction. A Syncretistic Account of Fictional 35 Entities, Dordrecht: Springer. ------. (2007) 'How to Allow for Intentionalia in the Jungle', Russell 27: 86–105. ------. (2009) 'Consequences of Schematism', Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8: 135–50. 40 ------. (2012) 'All the Existences That There Are', Disputatio 32: 361–83. Williamson, T. (1990) 'Necessary Identity and Necessary Existence', in R. Haller, J. Brandl (eds.) Wittgenstein: Towards a Re-Evaluation vol. 1, Vienna: HölderPichler-Tempsky. ------. (1998) 'Bare Possibilia', Erkenntnis 48: 257–73. 45 ------. (2000) 'The Necessary Framework of Objects', Topoi 19: 201–8. ------. (2002) 'Necessary Existents', in A. O' Hear (ed.) Logic, Thought and Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zalta, E.N. (1983) Abstract Objects, Dordrecht: Reidel. ------. (1988) Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, Cam50 bridge, MA: MIT Press. AQ3 AQ4 AQ5 AQ6 AQ7 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES RIPH 788267 QA: SR 9 April 2013 Initial