Skip to main content
Log in

What is the Problem of Non-Existence?

  • Published:
Philosophia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely held that there is a problem of talking about or otherwise representing things that not exist. But what exactly is this problem? This paper presents a formulation of the problem in terms of the conflict between the fact that there are truths about non-existent things and the fact that truths must be answerable to reality, how things are. Given this, the problem of singular negative existential statements is no longer the central or most difficult aspect of the problem of non-existence, despite what some philosophers say.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In some earlier work (Crane 1998, 2001, 2003) I argued that intentionality is characteristic of all mental phenomena: that it is the ‘mark’ of the mental. I still hold this view, but nothing I say in this paper depends on it.

  2. Cartwright alludes here to the view that ‘about’ is ambiguous, a view held by Searle (1983) among others.

  3. An example of a technical use of ‘about’ would be the kind of definition introduced by Smiley 1960.

  4. I am indebted here to discussions with Bill Brewer.

  5. http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-10-16-influential-people-list_x.htm

  6. Nature 293, 2 (1981). Thanks to Andrew Pomiankowski for bringing this to my attention.

  7. For the purposes of this paper, I am assuming that fictional characters don’t exist. Some philosophers (e.g. van Inwagen 1977, Thomasson 2003) disagree. But even if they are right about fiction, they still need to explain non-fictional non-existence.

  8. See Crane 2011a for a defence of the claim that we can think in a genuinely ‘singular’ way about non-existent objects.

  9. I therefore use the word ‘myth’ in a way which is different from Salmon’s (1987), but I believe closer to its ordinary meaning.

  10. Sir Ian Blair was the head of London’s Metropolitan Police Force from 2005 to 2008.

  11. Quine’s remark would have to be modified to make room for plural terms and relational predications, but this does not affect the central point.

  12. The literature on free logic is now vast. See Lambert 2003 for a useful collection of writings on the subject, and a clear introduction to the philosophical issues.

References

  • Azzouni, J. (2010). Talking about nothing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, K. (1982). De re belief and methodological solipsism. In A. Woodfield (Ed.), Thought and object. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brentano, F. (1874). Psychology from an empirical standpoint Originally published in 1874; English edition edited by L. McAlister, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (1973); reprinted with an introduction by Peter Simons, London: Routledge (1995).

  • Broad, C. D. (1939). Religion, philosophy and psychical researc. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burge, T. (1974). Truth and singular terms. Noûs, 8, 309–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, R. (1960). Negative existentials. Journal of Philosophy, 57, 629–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, D. J. (2004). The representational character of experience. In B. Leiter (Ed.), The future for philosophy (pp. 153–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (1998). Intentionality as the mark of the mental. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Contemporary issues in the philosophy of mind (pp. 229–251). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (2001). Elements of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (2003). The intentional structure of consciousness. In A. Jokic & Q. Smith (Eds.), Consciousness: New philosophical perspectives (pp. 33–56). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, T. (2011a). The singularity of singular thought. Proceedings of the aristotelian society supplementary volume 2011.

  • Crane, T. (2011b). Existence and quantification reconsidered. In T. Tahko (Ed.), Aristotelian metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donnellan, K. S. (1974). Speaking of nothing. Philosophical Review, 83, 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, K. (2003). Free logic: Selected essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinong, A. (1904). On the theory of objects, translated by I. Levi, D. B. Terrell, and R. Chisholm. In R. Chisholm (Ed.) Realism and the background of phenomenology. Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, 1981.

  • Moore, G. E. (1953). Some main problems of philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Priest, G. (2005). Towards non-being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Prior, A. N. (1971). Objects of thoughts. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Wv. O. (1948). On what there is. Review of Metaphysics, 2, 21–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quine, Wv. O. (1960). Word and object. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Routley, R. (1980). Exploring Meinong’s jungle and beyond. Canberra: Research School of the Social Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1903). The principles of mathematics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1905). On denoting. Mind, 14, 479–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1918). Knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11(1910–1911), 108–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, B. (1921). The analysis of mind. London: George Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sainsbury, R. M. (2005). Reference without referents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, N. (1987). Existence. Philosophical Perspectives, 1, 49–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smart, J. J. C. (1989). Our place in the universe. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley, T. (1960). Sense without denotation. Analysis, 20, 125–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. D. (2002). The problem of perception. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tennant, N. (1990). Natural logic. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Inwagen, P. (1977). Creatures of fiction. American Philosophical Quarterly, 14, 299–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Inwagen, P. (2008). McGinn on existence. Philosophical Quarterly, 58, 36–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the audience at my Carnap Lectures in Bochum in March 2011 for helpful discussion, and to an anonymous referee for Philosophia for excellent critical comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Crane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Crane, T. What is the Problem of Non-Existence?. Philosophia 40, 417–434 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-011-9354-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-011-9354-1

Keywords

Navigation