Modal Meinongianism, Russell’s Paradox, and the Language/Metalanguage Distinction

Polish Journal of Philosophy (2):63-78 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The subject of my article is the principle of characterization – the most controversial principle of Meinong’s Theory of Objects. The aim of this text is twofold. First of all, I would like to show that Russell’s well-known objection to Meinong’s Theory of Objects can be reformulated against a new modal interpretation of Meinongianism that is presented mostly by Graham Priest. Secondly, I would like to propose a strategy which gives uncontroversial restriction to the principle of characterization and which allows to avoid Russell’s argument. The strategy is based on the distinction between object- and metalanguage, and it applies to modal Meinongianism as well as to other so-called Meinongian theories.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2014-01-18

Downloads
972 (#24,923)

6 months
138 (#41,869)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Maciej Sendłak
University of Warsaw

Citations of this work

Fictionalism and Meinongianism.Nathaniel Gan - 2021 - Theoria : An International Journal for Theory, History and Fundations of Science 36 (1):49-62.

Add more citations

References found in this work

On Denoting.Bertrand Russell - 1905 - Mind 14 (56):479-493.
Outline of a theory of truth.Saul Kripke - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (19):690-716.
Nonexistent Objects.Terence Parsons - 1980 - Yale University Press.

View all 16 references / Add more references