Ways of reference to Meinongian objects. Ontological commitments of Meinongian theories
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12775/LLP.1994.005Abstract
A. Meinong’s views are usually associated with an highly inflated ontology including various kinds of nonexistent objects, incomplete and impossible ones among others. Around the turn of the century B. Russell strongly criticised this ontology accusing it of inconsistency. And perhaps because of this criticism Meinong’s views have been forgotten for a long time. Only recently some philosophers have created theories of objects which are formalisations of Meinong’s ontology or which are directly inspired by the ontology 1 . However there still remains a need to discuss the problem of ways of reference to Meinongian objects regarding their specific structure of predication, and the interrelated problem of ontological commitment of those theories.
Meinong’s ontological theory seems to be not so bizzare if we interpret it as a theory of possible intentional objects, i.e. possible objects of consciousness. And this interpretation perfectly agrees with phenomenological tradition from Brentano to Husserl and with the contemporary philosophy of mind. Needless to say reference is a special form of intentional relation so semantical investigations into these objects are of great relevance for general theory of intentionality.References
R. Clark, “Not Every Object of Thought Has Being: A Paradox in Naïve Predication Theory”, Noûs, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1978.
K. Fine, “Critical Review of Parsons’ Nonexistent Objects”, Philosophical Studies 45, 1984.
D. Jacquette; “Meinongian Logic. The Semantics of Existence and Non-existence” (to appear in Oxford University Press).
T. Parsons, Nonexistent Objects, Yale University Press, 1982.
K. Perszyk, Nonexistent Objects. Meinong and Contemporary Philosophy, Kluwer, Nijhoff 1993.
J. Paśniczek, Meinongowska wersja logiki klasycznej. Jej związki z filozofią języka, poznania, bytu i fikcji (in Polish: The Meinongian Version of Classical Logic. Its Relevance for the Philosophy of Language, Knowledge, Being, and Fiction), M. Curie-Skłodowska University Press 1988.
J. Paśniczek, “Can Meinongian Logic be Free?”, [in:] K. Lambert (ed.), New Directions in Free Logics (to appear).
W. V. Quine, From the Logical Point of View, Harvard University Press, 1961.
W. V. Quine, “Existence and Quantification”, L’Age de la Science, 1, 1968.
W. V. Quine, Philosophy of Logic, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1970.
R. Routley, Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond, Department Monograph #3 , Philosophy Department, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra 1980.
William Rapaport, “Meinongian Theories and Russellian Paradox”, Noûs 12, 1978.
William Rapaport, “Nonexistent Objects and Epistemological Ontology”, Grazer Philosophische Studien Vol. 25/26 1985.
E. Zalta, Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics, Dordrecht: Reidel 1983.
E. Zalta, Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality, MIT Press, 1988.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Stats
Number of views and downloads: 51
Number of citations: 0
