My original reaction to Yosh’s paper was to grumble. It seemed to me to contain a number of terminological infelicities, unpersuasive arguments, and counterintuitive implications. And while I think that some of my superficial complaints are worth pointing out (and I can’t help myself), a commentary consisting only of grumbling would be neither interesting nor helpful. Paul Viminitz would describe such a commentary as “unseemly”. And so I revisited Yosh’s paper with a more sympathetic eye. My second reaction was to (...) suppose that what Yosh had actually done was to provide a Russellian analysis of sentences containing descriptions but in a 2nd order logical system – a system in which quantification over properties is permitted and in which 1st order quantifiers are reinterpreted as 2nd order properties. This would be an interesting albeit modest contribution to the description literature. But as I reread Yosh’s paper in preparation for writing this commentary, I realized that given the account of individual kinds that was being developed this wasn’t right. Individual kinds are not properties at all, they are a new sort of individual – teams of one. Yosh’s proposal is hardly modest at all. So, in these comments, I am going to focus on the notion of an individual kind and whether or not we ought to endorse such entities in our semantic theorizing. But first, some preliminary grumbling – I really can’t help myself. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to examine how any domain of Meinongian objects can be structured by a special kind of mereology. The basic definition of this mereology is the following: an object is part of another iff every characteristic property of the former is also a characteristic property of the latter. I will show that this kind of mereology ends up being very powerful for dealing with Meinongian objects. Mereological sums and products are not restricted in (...) any way in a domain of Meinongian objects: there is a sum and a product for any pair of Meinongian objects. With the mereological operations of sum, product and complement, and two special Meinongian objects, we can define a full boolean algebra on Meinongian objects. Moreover, this kind of mereology is atomic and extensional: an atom is a Meinongian object having just one characteristic property and two objects are identical iff the same atoms are parts of both of them. A Meinongian object can finally be defined in mereological terms as the sum of the atoms of its characteristic properties. (shrink)

Can we believe that there are non-existent entities without commitment to the Meinongian metaphysics? This paper argues we can. What leads us from quantification over non-existent beings to Meinongianism is a general metaphysical assumption about reality at large, and not merely quantification over the non-existent. Broadly speaking, the assumption is that every being we talk about must have a real definition. It’s this assumption that drives us to enquire into the nature of beings like Pegasus, and what our relationship (...) as thinkers is to them. However, I argue this assumption only holds if you think your language, and in particular that aspect of it to do with referring to entities works in a specific way. This is the specific way generally assumed by the discipline called ‘Semantics’. I sketch out an alternative, call it global expressivism, in which talk of referring is given an expressivist, speech-act theoretic treatment. If we accept that our talk of the non-existent works as the global expressivist tells us it does, then the question of the metaphysical nature of non-existent entities is utterly void. You might say that Pegasus is empty of any metaphysical nature. Since the non-existent lacks any metaphysical nature, the metaphysics of the non-existent, Meinongianism, as a form of inquiry, lacks a subject matter, despite the fact that we talk happily, and indeed unavoidably, of the non-existent. (shrink)

This article is a critical review of Dale Jacquette's "Meinongian Logic. The Semantics of Existence and Nonexistence" (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). Every consistent Meinongian semantics contains either a distinction of two kinds of properties – "nuclear" and "extranuclear" ones – (Terence Parsons) or a modes of predication distinction (William Rapaport, Edward N. Zalta, and others). Jacquette claims that the former is conceptually prior to the latter and that only the former rids Meinong's theory of objects of some paradoxes. (...) I argue against these priority claims. Furthermore, I offer definitions of both distinctions, based on Meinong's concept of so-being. (shrink)

This article is a critical review of Dale Jacquette's "Meinongian Logic. The Semantics of Existence and Nonexistence" (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1996). Every consistent Meinongian semantics contains either a distinction of two kinds of properties – "nuclear" and "extranuclear" ones – (Terence Parsons) or a modes of predication distinction (William Rapaport, Edward N. Zalta, and others). Jacquette claims that the former is conceptually prior to the latter and that only the former rids Meinong's theory of objects of some paradoxes. (...) I argue against these priority claims. Furthermore, I offer definitions of both distinctions, based on Meinong's concept of so-being. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on two clusters of questions concerning existence. The first cluster concerns the scope of existence, examining how wide the domain of existing things is and whether it encompass absolutely everything. The second cluster concerns vagueness and indeterminacy, explaining whether vague things and vague categories of things are there or all vagueness is a matter of referring indifferently to a large number of absolutely precise things and showing the ultimate source of vagueness. There are two theories of vagueness, (...) epistemic and metaphysical. The chapter focuses on Meinongian definitions of 'existence' and examines four arguments in favor of Anti‐Actualism. The first and second respectively appeals to common sense and the need for intentional objects, that is, objects of certain mental attitudes. The third appeals to the need for fictional and illusory entities. And the fourth appeals to the need for non‐existent things as constituents of certain merely possible situations. (shrink)

The purpose of the paper will be first a presentation of Meinong's concept of lying, and then an application of Meinong's ideas to a certain formal analysis. The analysis will be based on two primitive terms which are two-place predicates: B - "to believe" and W - "to want". On the basis of the above predicates, the Meinongian definition of lying (the three-place predicate L - "to lie") will be given, together with another definition of a speech act (the (...) three-place predicate S - "to say"). It is not intended to give a ready formal system, but rather to show that such a system is possible to construct. The proposal which will be presented with the application of formal tools and which has Meinongian style is open for different interpretations: one of the directions is logic of intentions, another one - theory of speech-acts. (shrink)

The purpose of the paper will be first a presentation of Meinong's concept of lying, and then an application of Meinong's ideas to a certain formal analysis. The analysis will be based on two primitive terms which are two-place predicates: B - "to believe" and W - "to want". On the basis of the above predicates, the Meinongian definition of lying (the three-place predicate L - "to lie") will be given, together with another definition of a speech act (the (...) three-place predicate S - "to say"). It is not intended to give a ready formal system, but rather to show that such a system is possible to construct. The proposal which will be presented with the application of formal tools and which has Meinongian style is open for different interpretations: one of the directions is logic of intentions, another one - theory of speech-acts. (shrink)

Using the theory of definite descriptions, Russell and, following him, Quine masterfully challenged Meinong’s Theory of Objects (TO). In this paper, firstly I try to show that although the Russell-Quine’s interpretation of TO has been taken seriously even by many notable Neo-Meinongians and first-rate scholars, yet it is not the ultimately convincing reading of the Theory, at least not when we boil down the theory to Meinong’s primary motives and his essential arguments. Moreover, I show that a form of the (...) indispensability argument is the backbone of Meinong’s theory. The argument is surprisingly akin to what Quine proposed for his realism with regard to the existence of mathematical entities. Consequently, I argue that mathematics plays an important role in Meinong’s argument and hence his overall theory. I believe that in this way the debate between Meinongian and Quinean can be directed to more compromising and fruitful grounds. (shrink)

This paper defends the possibility of admitting occurrents in a presentist ontology. Two ways of doing so are proposed, the first one involves Meinongian presentism. By using the notion of non-existent object and coherently modifying some mereological principle, it is argued, the presentist can allow for occurrents. The second proposal involves ex-concrete objects. Ex-concrete objects, i.e. objects that are contingently not concrete, have been used by Linsky and Zalta, 431-458, 1994), Williamson in the modal metaphysics debate, by Orilia, 589-607, (...) 2016) in the presentism-eternalism debate, and by Longenecker, 5091-5111, 2018) in the debate about material constitution. I argue that, just by admitting ex-concrete objects, it is possible to have occurrents even for the presentist. Of course, in order to do so we must modify our definitions of occurrent and continuant. Nevertheless, I argue that my theory is metaphysically sound, at least for the presentist persuaded by the intuitive claim that there are occurrents, which otherwise she must reject. (shrink)

A metafísica de 'Os Princípios da Matemática' de Russell e a controvérsia à respeito da suposta semelhança entre essa metafísica e a ontologia meinongiana Resumo: No presente artigo, objetiva-se apresentar as principais características da metafísica do realismo lógico, desenvolvido por Russell em Os Princípios da Matemática, de 1903, e, principalmente, analisar a controvérsia sobre se os princípios dessa metafísica podem realmente ser interpretados como semelhantes aos princípios da ontologia meinongiana. São comparados os pontos de vista opostos dessa controvérsia à luz (...) dos trechos de Os Princípios da Matemática que supostamente comprometeram Russell de ter elaborado uma gramática filosófica na qual todo e qualquer nome próprio ou descrição definida, ocupando a posição de sujeito lógico nas proposições, referem-se a objetos com alguma categoria de Ser. Ao realizar tal análise, conclui-se que o problema central diz respeito aos nomes próprios vazios e que, portanto, a metafísica de Os Princípios da Matemática expressa uma perspectiva instável da teoria da denotação de Russell. Palavras-chave: Russell; Ser; Existência; Significado. Russell’s The Principles of Mathematics metaphysics and the controversy over the supposed similarity between this metaphysics and the meinongian ontology Abstract: This article aims to present the main characteristics of the metaphysics of logical realism, developed by Russell in The Principles of Mathematics, of 1903, and, mainly, to analyze the controversy about whether the principles of this metaphysics can really be interpreted as similar to the principles of meinongian ontology. The opposing points of view of this controversy are compared in the light of the excerpts from The Principles of Mathematics that supposedly committed Russell to having elaborated a philosophical grammar in which all and any proper names or definite descriptions, occupying the position of logical subject in the propositions, refer to objects with some category of Being. In carrying out such an analysis, it is concluded that the central problem concerns empty proper names and that, therefore, the metaphysics of The Principles of Mathematics expresses an unstable perspective of Russell’s theory of denotation. Keywords: Russell; Being; Existence; Meaning. La metafísica de Los Principios de las Matemáticas de Russell y la controversia sobre la supuesta similitud entre esta metafísica y la ontología meinongiana Resumen: Este artículo tiene como objetivo presentar las principales características de la metafísica del realismo lógico, desarrollada por Russell en Los Principios de las Matemáticas, de 1903, y, principalmente, analizar la controversia sobre si los principios de esta metafísica pueden realmente interpretarse como similares a los principios de la ontología meinongiana. Los puntos de vista opuestos de esta controversia se comparan a la luz de los extractos de Los Principios de las Matemáticas que supuestamente comprometieron Russell a haber elaborado una gramática filosófica en la que todos y cualquier nombre propio o descripción definida, ocupando la posición de sujeto lógico en las proposiciones, se refieren a objetos con alguna categoría de Ser. Al realizar tal análisis, se concluye que el problema central concierne a los nombres propios vacíos y que, por lo tanto, la metafísica de Los Principios de las Matemáticas expresa una perspectiva inestable de la teoría de la denotación de Russell. Palabras clave: Russell; Ser; Existencia; Significado. Data de registro: 10/04/2020 Data de aceite: 08/12/2020. (shrink)

In this paper I will first contend that semantically based arguments in favour of or against problematic entities—like those provided, respectively, in a realist Meinongian and in an antirealist Russellian camp—are ultimately inconclusive. Indeed, only genuinely ontological arguments, specifically addressed to prove (or to reject) the existence of entities of a definite kind, suit the purpose. Thus, I will sketch an argument intended to show that there really are entities of an apparently specific kind, i.e. _intentionalia_, broadly conceived as (...) things that may actually exist as well as actually not exist. Finally, I will try to explain why that argument proves the existence of only some sorts of _intentionalia_, by showing how this is related to the fact that, as some have correctly maintained, _intentionalia_ have no intrinsic nature. (shrink)

In this paper, the authors try to clarify the relations between Meinong’s and Russell's thoughts on the ontological ideas of existence. The Meinongian theory on non-existent objects does not in itself violate the principle of non-contradiction, since the problem that this hypothesis offers to the theory of definite descriptions is not so much a logical problem as an ontological problem. To demonstrate this we will establish what we believe are the two main theses basic to the theory of descriptions: (...) the epistemological thesis and logical thesis. (shrink)

In H-N. Castañeda's ontology, a fundamental Fregean distinction is drawn between unsaturated and saturated entities, the former corresponding to predicative aspects of reality, the latter to individuals, that is, to items which can be referred to by means of singular terms1. Within saturated entities, Castañeda attempts to distinguish between abstract and concrete individuals. Sets and Platonic Forms of the F-ness-type are the typical examples of the former category2. As to the latter category instead, concrete individual guises represent both the bottom (...) layer in a hypothetical ontological hierarchy of individuals which has Platonic Forms at its top, and the first step in the psychological process of world cognition, which moves from the most concrete object to the most abstract3. Among concrete individual guises, moreover, Castañeda draws a further ontological distinction between possible and impossible guises, according to the different behavior guises display with respect to the possibility of existing4. Both kinds of guises, however, share that feature which enables to qualify them as guises, i.e. that of being bundles of properties. Every guise is indeed constituted out of (a certain set of) properties, or better predicative aspects5. The predication to a guise of one of its constitutive properties is taken by Castañeda as the primary sense of predication. He calls it Meinongian, or internal, predication (in symbols: "a(F)", where "a" stands for a guise and "F" for one of its constitutive properties)6. For Castañeda, moreover, the main linguistic tool by means of which a guise is denoted is a definite description, insofar as such a description clearly reveals the properties which a guise internally possesses7. Thus, we can say that "the F- er is F" is a typical expression of an internal predication of a property F to the guise denoted by the definite description "the F". If we take "F" as a metavariable for properties, we can say that the above formulation corresponds to what Routley has called the Characterization Postulate8. Now what we want to scrutinize in this paper is, first, whether the following four theses of Castañeda's Guise Theory are really compatible.. (shrink)

About 1904 Meinong formulated his most famous idea: there are no empty (non-referential) terms. Russell also did not accept non-referential singular terms, but in “On Denoting” he claimed that all singular terms that are apparently empty could be explained away as apparent singular terms. However, if we take a more careful look at both theories, the picture becomes more complex. It is well known that Russell’s concept of a genuine proper name is very technical; but this is also true of (...) Meinong. Also, according to Meinong we can refer “directly” only to a very special category of ontologically simple objects. However, a very important difference is that, in the domain of Meinongian objects, a _plurality_ of objects always corresponds to each description. Thus, if Meinong were right, there could be _no definite descriptions_. If we narrow the domain of reference to _existent_ objects, we can secure the uniqueness of the reference object by specifying a collection of predicates that is contingently satisfied by only one (existing) object. But if we operate in the domain of all _possible_ objects, we have to specify _all_ properties that are had by the object in question. It turns out that such a “Leibnizian” specification amounts to the complete description of a possible world. (shrink)

The aim of this paper is, firstly, to identify the areas of conceptual confusion about the notion of auditory object that could benefit from a cooperation between philosophy and psychology of perception. Secondly, I try to clarify in what sense there may be individual entities that exist only in time focusing on auditory objects, and to establish what kind of relationship links the existence of such purely temporal entities with the existence of spatiotemporal entities such as bodies or physical objects. (...) Finally, a new definition of auditory object, conceived as a partially mind-dependent object, or Meinongian higher-order object based on inferiora, is discussed. (shrink)

[Draft substantially revised, September 2021] David Lewis acclimated us to talk of “nonactual concreta that exist,” regarding talking donkeys and the like. I shall argue that this was not for the best, and try to normalize a way of describing them as “actual concreta that do not exist.” The basis of this is a defense of the Meinongian thesis “there are objects of which it is true that there are no such objects,” re: fictitious and illusory objects. I first (...) formulate the problem of negative existentials in a novel way, and discuss why this new version is more forceful against anti-Meinongians. Additional data is also pressed against anti-Meinongians--e.g., the truth of ‘Pegasus is imaginary’, and a reading of ‘There actually are illusory objects’ where it comes out true. The Meinongian, in contrast, easily and uniformly explains the same data, by allowing the existence Pegasus, pink elephants, and the like. But contra Meinong, these cases suggest that the nonexistent objects are mind-dependent objects, and I clarify and defend this suggestion from several objections. The resulting Meinongianism is thus “conservative” in that it merely acknowledges the sense in which there are mind-dependent objects, imaginary and illusory objects being prime examples. Of special note, the “ideology” is conservative as well in that the typical Meinongian jargon of “nuclear” or “encoded” properties is paraphrased away. New suggestions about the ontology of abstracta, mere possibilia, and impossibilia are sketched in light of this. Comparisons are also made with Thomasson, Crane, and McGinn, among others. (shrink)

Meinongian metaphysics uses “exists” as a genuine predicate, which entails that there are some objects that do not exist. The formal details of this position have been elucidated by several authors, but the question of how to explicate the predicate has received less attention. This paper examines Panayot Butchvarov’s thesis that existence is power, which is deduced from an argument that begins with the knowability of existent objects. It is argued that this account presupposes the thinking subject, and that (...) when this presupposition is made explicit, it helps to clarify the deduction that Butchvarov uses, and has several other advantages with respect to Meinongian metaphysics. (shrink)

Meinongian metaphysics uses “exists” as a genuine predicate, which entails that there are some objects that do not exist. The formal details of this position have been elucidated by several authors, but the question of how to explicate the predicate has received less attention. This paper examines Panayot Butchvarov’s thesis that existence is power, which is deduced from an argument that begins with the knowability of existent objects. It is argued that this account presupposes the thinking subject, and that (...) when this presupposition is made explicit, it helps to clarify the deduction that Butchvarov uses, and has several other advantages with respect to Meinongian metaphysics. (shrink)

This paper explores the view that there are such things as (nonexistent) fictional objects, and that we refer to such objects when we say things like "Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective", or "Conan Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes". A theory of such objects is developed as a special application of a Meinongian Ontology.

This paper explores the view that there are such things as (nonexistent) fictional objects, and that we refer to such objects when we say things like "Sherlock Holmes is a fictional detective", or "Conan Doyle wrote about Sherlock Holmes". A theory of such objects is developed as a special application of a Meinongian Ontology.

It is tempting to think that Meinong overlooked the "specific/nonspecific" distinction. For example, 'I am looking for a grey horse' may either mean that there is a specific horse I am looking for (e.g. one I lost), or just that I am grey-horse-seeking. The former reading, and not the latter, requires for its truth that there be a grey horse. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether it is defensible to maintain Meinong's theory here: to take nonspecific reading (...) of any verb concerning a possibly non-existent but incomplete object. This requires essential appeal to the distinction between nuclear and extranuclear properties. Included is a discussion of criticisms of Meinong's own theory, and of the Medieval theory of ampliation, according to which psychological discourse can "ampliate" a term such as 'chimera' so as to stand for one or more things that cannot exist, yet are chimeras. The paper concludes inconclusively. (shrink)

In this paper I propose a fundamental modification of standard type theory, produce a new kind of type theoretic language, and couch in this language a comprehensive theory of abstract individuals and abstract properties and relations of every type. I then suggest how to employ the theory to solve the four following philosophical problems: the identification and ontological status of Frege's Senses; the deviant behavior of terms in propositional attitude contexts; the non-identity of necessarily equivalent propositions, and the paradox of (...) analysis. We can roughly describe these solutions as follows: the senses of English names and descriptions which denote individuals will be modelled as abstract individuals; the senses of English relation denoting expressions of a given type will be modelled as abstract relations of that type. Inside de dicto attitude contexts, these English expressions denote their senses. Relations and propositions will not be identified with their extensions, nor with functions or sets of any kind. They will be taken as primitive, and precise being and identity conditions will be proposed consistent with the view that necessarily equivalent relations and propositions may be distinct. With the modelling described in, the expressions being a brother and being a male sibling may both denote the same property, though their senses may differ. Just as Frege predicts, being a brother just is being a male sibling is an informative identity statement because the terms flanking the identity sign have the same denotation, though distinct senses. (shrink)

This essay re-examines Meinong's "Über Gegenstandstheorie" and undertakes a clarification and revision of it that is faithful to Meinong, overcomes the various objections to his theory, and is capable of offering solutions to various problems in philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. I then turn to a discussion of a historically and technically interesting Russell-style paradox (now known as "Clark's Paradox") that arises in the modified theory. I also examine the alternative Meinong-inspired theories of Hector-Neri Castañeda and Terence Parsons.

The present paper is divided in two parts . In the first part we will propose Meinong’s theory of time outlined in 1899 interpreted in such a way that the subtlety of his argumentation is emphasised. In the second, we will discuss different solutions for the celebrated McTaggart’s paradox, reaching the conclusion that a theory of time suggested by the reflections of the Austrian Philosopher seems to be the most adequate perspective for tackling this problem.

Meinong's object theory is primarily motivated by the needs of intentionality theory. I argue that Meinongian objects must be intensional entities if, as asked, they are to serve as the objects of thought in a purely object-theoretic account of intentionality. For Meinong, incomplete objects are the proper objects of thought. Complete objects are beyond our grasp; we apprehend them as best we can when we intend incomplete objects embedded in them. This yields, on a semantic plane, an account of (...) failures or substitutivity of identity in intentional contexts. And this, I argue, forces incomplete objects to be intensional, and so therefore are complete objects. (shrink)

This essay describes computational semantic networks for a philosophical audience and surveys several approaches to semantic-network semantics. In particular, propositional semantic networks are discussed; it is argued that only a fully intensional, Meinongian semantics is appropriate for them; and several Meinongian systems are presented.

Introduction Alexius Meinong and his circle of students and collaborators at the Phi- losophisches Institut der Universitat Graz formulated the basic ...

Meinong's object theory is primarily motivated by the needs of intentionality theory. I argue that Meinongian objects must be intensional entities if, as asked, they are to serve as the objects of thought in a purely object-theoretic account of intentionality. For Meinong, incomplete objects are the proper objects of thought. Complete objects are beyond our grasp; we apprehend them as best we can when we intend incomplete objects embedded in them. This yields, on a semantic plane, an account of (...) failures or substitutivity of identity in intentional contexts. And this, I argue, forces incomplete objects to be intensional, and so therefore are complete objects. (shrink)

The views of David Lewis and the Meinongians are both often met with an incredulous stare. This is not by accident. The stunned disbelief that usually accompanies the stare is a natural first reaction to a large ontology. Indeed, Lewis has been explicitly linked with Meinong, a charge that he has taken great pains to deny. However, the issue is not a simple one. "Meinongianism" is a complex set of distinctions and doctrines about existence and predication, in addition to the (...) famously large ontology. While there are clearly non-Meinongian features of Lewis' views, it is our thesis that many of the characteristic elements of Meinongian metaphysics appear in Lewis' theory. Moreover, though Lewis rejects incomplete and inconsistent Meinongian objects, his ontology may exceed that of a Meinongian who doesn't accept his possibilia. Thus, Lewis explains the truth of "there might have been talking donkeys" by appealing to possibilia which are talking donkeys. But the Meinongian need not accept that there exist things which are talking donkeys. Indeed, we show that a Meinongian even need not accept that there are nonexistent things which are talking donkeys! (shrink)

Some commitments at the interface of semantics and ontology, such as numbers or symphonies, tend to appear problematic. The scorekeeping approach to semantics introduces contextually shifting parameters that allow for construal of truth as indirect correspondence. Meinong did recognize diversity and richness that is made possible by the non-reductionist engagement of the scorekeeping approach. Because of his commitment to the deep presupposition of direct correspondence construal of truth though, Meinong had to interpret richness of normative discursive scorekeeping commitments as richness (...) of ontological strata, features and engagements. Once as Meinong recognizes the construal of truth as indirect correspondence, many problems related to his objects dissolve, naturally placing his scorekeeping discovery into discursive normative setting. A translation of Meinongian objects into discursive scores confirms that his discovery aims at these indeed, which is obscured by his sticking to the construal of truth as direct correspondence. (shrink)

The paper analyses the contemporary notion of an extension of apredicate from the perspective of semantics typical for Meinongian logics, andin opposition to the traditional notion of extension. This leads to a discussionof the types of properties that can be predicated about objects as belonging tothe sets of properties ascribed to them, and such that can be predicated aboutthem only ‘externally’. It is also problematic in which sense nonexistentobjects possess the properties ascribed to them. The concluding remarksconcern some issues (...) related to the truth of predications about nonexistentobjects, which is the basic condition to admit them as belonging to theextensions of predicates in the first place. (shrink)

Neo-Russellianism, which incorporates both Millianism (with regard to proper names) and the thesis of singular Russellian propositions, has widely been defended after the publication of Kripke's Naming and Necessity. The view, however, encounters various problems regarding empty names, names that do not have semantic referents. Nathan Salmon and Scott Soames have defended neo-Russellianism against such problems in a novel way; to account for various intuitions of competent and rational speakers regarding utterances of sentences containing empty names, Salmon and Soames appeal (...) neither to entities similar to Fregean senses, e.g. propositional guises or modes of presentation, nor to Gricean implicatures. In this paper, however, I argue that their view slips into neo-Meinongianism; it is committed to nonexistent objects, assigns various properties to them, and allows quantifiers range over such entities. This, I conclude, makes Salmon and Soames' view less appealing, if not implausible. (shrink)

List of errata to Rapaport, William J. (1978), "Meinongian Theories and a Russellian Paradox", Noûs 12: 153-180.

The triangle in general or the man as such are general objects. These are objects that possess the properties common to all the individual objects in their range. Stanisław Leśniewski and Tadeusz Kotarbiński, two Polish philosophers and logicians belonging to the Lvov-Warsaw School, produced several proofs aiming to show that such objects are impossible because the principles that govern them lead to a contradiction. In this paper I first clarify the structure of their proofs. Then I suggest a way to (...) elude their conclusion. In order to do that I use two Meinongian distinctions: the distinction between complete and incomplete objects, on the one hand, and the distinction between nuclear and extranuclear properties, on the other hand. I claim first that general objects are incomplete objects, i.e. they do not satisfy the ontological principle of the excluded middle, and second that the principle that governs the relations between the properties of general objects and the properties of the individual objects in their range should be restricted to nuclear properties. (shrink)

The prototypes of definiteness and indefiniteness in English are the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, and singular noun phrases (NPs)1 determined by them. That being the case it is not to be predicted that the concepts, whatever their content, will extend satisfactorily to other determiners or NP types. However it has become standard to extend these notions. Of the two categories definites have received rather more attention, and more than one researcher has characterized the category of definite (...) NPs by enumerating NP types. Westerståhl (1985), who is concerned only with determiners in the paper cited, gives a very short list: demonstrative NPs, possessive NPs, and definite descriptions. Prince (1992) lists proper names and personal pronouns, as well as NPs with the, a demonstrative, or a possessive NP as determiner. She notes, in addition, that “certain quantifiers (e.g. all, every) have been argued to be definite” (Prince 1992: 299). This list, with the quantifiers added, agrees with that given by Birner & Ward (1998, 114). Ariel (1988, 1990) adds null anaphoric NPs. (shrink)