Abstract

Mariusz Grygianiec has criticized the so called "proofs of nonexistence of general objects" as based on a wrong definition. In this paper one of his arguments is shown to depend on an unsatisfiable condition (contradictory to some basic ontological intuitions) without which, however, it is inconclusive as a reductio ad absurdum. Furthermore, it is suggested that even if the argument was sound, it could by no means be counted - contrary to the Author's intention - as a counterargument to Stanisław Leśniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbiński