Abstract

In his paper "Noneism or Allism" David Lewis argued that Richard Sylvan's rehabilitation of Meinong's theory of objects was not a noneist one but rather an allist, that is, that all objects whatsoever actually exist and thus Meinong and Sylvan are among the greatest "entity-multipliers". But this is exactly what Sylvan tried to show is not the case. I'll argue that Lewis' attack ultimately fails in re-instating an old serious misinterpretation of Meinongian metaphysics. In doing so he deflects attention away from the substance of Sylvan's position and casts him as the defender of something unintelligible.