Spór o niezaktualizowane możliwości

Filozofia Nauki 18 (1) (2010)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
In 1947 Quine wrote one of the most important and influential articles in the twentieth century philosophy - "On What There Is". One of the aims of this article was a critique of Meinong's Theory of Object. The critique was especially focused upon nonactual possibilities, which (according to Meinong) are some kinds of nonexistent objects. In my paper I want to present Neo-Meinongian refutations of Quine's critique. In order to do this I discuss: (i) the main thesis of "On What There Is" ,(ii) premises of Meinongian Theory, (iii) views of proponents and opponents of the idea of nonexistent objects, (iv) Quine's critique aimed at nonactual possibilities, (v) Terence Parsons' theory, based on the distinction between nuclear and extranucler properties, and (vi) noneism, defended by Richard Routley. I also try to give a reply to the most popular critiques aimed at both Neo-Meinongian theories. The main conclusion is that Quine's critique and his arguments against nonactual possibilities aren't dangerous for theories endorsing Meinong's Theory of Object. Contrary to what Gilbert Ryle once claimed (If Meinongianism isn't dead, nothing is), Meinongian theories are still alive and doing well
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Revision history
Archival date: 2016-09-08
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
.van Inwagen, Peter
Noneism or Allism?Lewis, David K.
The Logic of Inconsistency.Rescher, N. & Brandom, R.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index

Total views
55 ( #32,136 of 41,641 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
16 ( #29,353 of 41,641 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.