Abstract

This paper considers different views on existent golden mountain problem, the subject of dispute within the framework of the discussion between Alexius Meinong and Bertrand Russell, which took place in the period from 1904 to 1920. Namely, we are talking about Russell’s argument that Meinong’s theory contains a contradiction re­garding different types of existence. According to Russell, it turns out that Meinong thought that the existent golden mountain exists, but it does not exist. The entire dis­cussion was divided into several stages. During the discussion, the conceptions of both authors changed, as well as their attitude to each other’s theories and the formu­lation of the problem. Russell at fiesta thought that it’s wrong to assert that there can be any correct propositions about non-existent objects like the current king of France, the golden mountain, or a round square. At that stage of the discussion the theory of Meinong did not have sufficient tools to clarify its position on this issue. This problem was solved only ten years later, but the problem of the “existing golden mountain” re­mained and was never sufficiently clarified by Meinong. Meinong agreed with Russell that, according to his theory, it follows “The existing golden mountain exists, but does not exist” is correct proposition, but at the same time pointed out that the concept of ‘existence’ is used in a different sense. Commentators and followers of Meinong (Ernst Mally, John Findlay, Dale Jacquette) believed that this refinement did not solve the problem, and therefore offered their own solutions in the framework of the theory of objects.The purpose of this study is to find out whether the methods proposed by them really solve the problem of the existent golden mountain, whether they violate any principles of the Meinong theory, and finally, whether it is possible to solve this problem.