Nonexistent objects

{{Short description|Philosophical treatment of oxymorons}}  In [[metaphysics]] and [[ontology]], '''nonexistent objects''' are a concept advanced by Austrian philosopher [[Alexius Meinong]] in the 19th and 20th centuries within a "[[Abstract object theory|theory of objects]]". He was interested in [[Intentional objects|intentional states]] which are directed at nonexistent objects. Starting with the "principle of [[intentionality]]", mental phenomena are intentionally directed towards an object. People may imagine, desire or fear something that does not exist. Other philosophers concluded that intentionality is not a real relation and therefore does not require the existence of an object, while Meinong concluded there is an object for every mental state whatsoever—if not an existent then at least a nonexistent one.<ref>''[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]'', [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nonexistent-objects/#HistRootAlexMeinProbInte "Nonexistent Objects: Historical Roots"].</ref>

==Round square copula== {{distinguish|Round Square (educational organization)}} The '''round square copula''' is a common example of the [[dual copula strategy]] used in reference to the "problem of nonexistent objects" as well as their relation to problems in modern [[philosophy of language]].<ref name=SEP/>

The issue arose, most notably, between the theories of [[contemporary philosopher]]s [[Alexius Meinong]] (see Meinong's 1904 book ''Investigations in Theory of Objects and Psychology'')<ref>[[Alexius Meinong]], "Über Gegenstandstheorie" ("The Theory of Objects"), in Alexius Meinong, ed. (1904). [https://archive.org/details/untersuchungenzu00mein ''Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie''] (''Investigations in Theory of Objects and Psychology''), Leipzig: Barth, pp. 1–51.</ref> and [[Bertrand Russell]] (see Russell's 1905 article "[[On Denoting]]").<ref>[[Bertrand Russell]], "[[On Denoting]]," ''Mind'', New Series, Vol. 14, No. 56. (Oct. 1905), pp. 479–493. [http://bactra.org/Russell/denoting/ online text], {{doi|10.1093/mind/XIV.4.479}}, [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2248381 JSTOR text].</ref> Russell's critique of Meinong's [[Abstract object theory|theory of objects]], also known as the '''Russellian view''', became the established view on the problem of nonexistent objects.{{sfn|Zalta|1983|p=5}}

In [[late modern philosophy]], the concept of the "square circle" ({{langx|de|viereckiger Kreis}}) had also been discussed before in [[Gottlob Frege]]'s ''[[The Foundations of Arithmetic]]'' (1884).<ref>[[Gottlob Frege]], ''[[The Foundations of Arithmetic]]'', Northwestern University Press, 1980[1884], p. 87.</ref>

===The dual copula strategy=== {{main|Abstract object theory}} The strategy employed is the '''dual copula strategy''',<ref name=SEP/> also known as the '''dual predication approach''',<ref>Jacek Paśniczek, ''The Logic of Intentional Objects: A Meinongian Version of Classical Logic'', Springer, 1997, p. 125.</ref> which is used to make a distinction between relations of [[Property (philosophy)|properties]] and individuals. It [[logical consequence|entails]] creating a sentence that is not supposed to make sense by forcing the term "is" into ambiguous meaning.

The dual copula strategy was originally brought to prominence in [[contemporary philosophy]] by [[Ernst Mally]].<ref name=Mally1912>Mally, Ernst, ''Gegenstandstheoretische Grundlagen der Logik und Logistik'', Leipzig: Barth, 1912, [https://mally.stanford.edu/mally-book/ObjectTheoreticFoundationsOfLogic2.pdf §33].</ref><ref name=Stanford>[https://mally.stanford.edu/mally.html Ernst Mally – The Metaphysics Research Lab]</ref> Other proponents of this approach include: [[Héctor-Neri Castañeda]], [[William J. Rapaport]], and [[Edward N. Zalta]].<ref name=Jacquette>Dale Jacquette, ''Meinongian Logic: The Semantics of Existence and Nonexistence'', Walter de Gruyter, 1996, p. 17.</ref>

By borrowing Zalta's notational method (''Fb'' stands for ''b exemplifies'' the property of being ''F''; ''bF'' stands for ''b encodes'' the property of being ''F''), and using a revised version of Meinongian object theory which makes use of a dual copula distinction (''MOTdc''), we can say that the object called "the round square" encodes the property of being round, the property of being square, all properties implied by these, and no others.<ref name=SEP>{{cite SEP |url-id=nonexistent-objects |title=Nonexistent Objects |first=Maria |last=Reicher |date=2014 }}</ref> But it is true that there are also infinitely many properties being exemplified by an object called the round square (and, really, any object)—e.g. the property of not being a computer, and the property of not being a pyramid. Note that this strategy has forced "is" to abandon its [[Predicate (mathematics)|predicative]] use, and now functions [[Abstract and concrete|abstractly]].

When one now analyzes the round square copula using the ''MOTdc'', one will find that it now avoids the three common [[paradoxes]]: (1) The violation of the [[law of noncontradiction]], (2) The paradox of claiming the property of existence without actually existing, and (3) producing counterintuitive consequences. Firstly, the ''MOTdc'' shows that the round square does not exemplify the property of being round, but the property of being round and square. Thus, there is no subsequent contradiction. Secondly, it avoids the conflict of existence/non-existence by claiming non-physical existence: by the ''MOTdc'', it can only be said that the round square simply does not exemplify the property of occupying a region in space. Finally, the ''MOTdc'' avoids counterintuitive consequences (like a 'thing' having the property of nonexistence) by stressing that the round square copula can be said merely to encode the property of being round and square, not actually exemplifying it. Thus, logically, it does ''not'' belong to any set or class.

In the end, what the ''MOTdc'' really does is create a ''kind'' of object: a nonexistent object that is very different from the objects we might normally think of. Occasionally, references to this notion, while obscure, may be called "Meinongian objects."

===The dual property strategy=== Making use of the notion of "non-physically existent" objects is controversial in philosophy, and created the buzz for many articles and books on the subject during the first half of the 20th century. There are other strategies for avoiding the problems of Meinong's theories, but they suffer from serious problems as well.

First is the '''dual property strategy''',<ref name=SEP/> also known as the '''nuclear–extranuclear strategy'''.<ref name=SEP/>

Mally introduced the dual property strategy,<ref>Mally, Ernst. 1909. "Gegenstandstheorie und Mathematik", ''Bericht Über den III. Internationalen Kongress für Philosophie zu Heidelberg (Report of the Third [[International Congress of Philosophy]], Heidelberg)'', 1–5 September 1908; ed. Professor Dr. [[Theodor Elsenhans]], 881–886. Heidelberg: Carl Winter’s Universitätsbuchhandlung. Verlag-Nummer 850. Translation: Ernst Mally, "Object Theory and Mathematics", in: Jacquette, D., ''Alexius Meinong, The Shepherd of Non-Being'' (Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer, 2015), [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-3-319-18075-5%2F1.pdf pp. 396–404, esp. 397].</ref><ref>Dale Jacquette, ''Meinongian Logic: The Semantics of Existence and Nonexistence'', Walter de Gruyter, 1996, p. 16.</ref> but did not endorse it. The dual property strategy was eventually adopted by Meinong.<ref name=Stanford/> Other proponents of this approach include: [[Terence Parsons]] and [[Richard Routley]].<ref name=Jacquette/>

According to Meinong, it is possible to distinguish the [[nature (philosophy)|natural]] (nuclear) properties of an object, from its external (extranuclear) properties. Parsons identifies four types of extranuclear properties: [[ontological]], [[modal analysis|modal]], [[intentional]], [[Technology|technical]]—however, philosophers dispute Parson's claims in number and kind. Additionally, Meinong states that nuclear properties are either constitutive or consecutive, meaning properties that are either explicitly contained or implied/included in a description of the object. Essentially the strategy denies the possibility for objects to have only ''one'' property, and instead they may have only one ''nuclear'' property. Meinong himself, however, found this solution to be inadequate in several ways and its inclusion only served to muddle the definition of an object.

===The other worlds strategy=== There is also the '''other worlds strategy'''.<ref name=SEP/> Similar to the ideas explained with [[possible worlds]] theory, this strategy employs the view that logical principles and the law of contradiction have limits, but without assuming that everything is true. Enumerated and championed by [[Graham Priest]], who was heavily influenced by Routley, this strategy forms the notion of "[[noneism]]". In short, assuming there exist infinite possible and impossible worlds, objects are freed from necessarily existing in all worlds, but instead may exist in impossible worlds (where the law of contradiction does not apply, for example) and not in the actual world. Unfortunately, accepting this strategy entails accepting the host of problems that come with it, such as the ontological status of impossible worlds.

== Meinong's jungle ==

'''Meinong's jungle''' is a term used to describe the repository of [[non-existent object]]s in the [[ontology]] of [[Alexius Meinong]].<ref name=jacquette/> An example of such an object is a "round square", which cannot exist definitionally and yet can be the subject of logical inferences, such as that it is both "round" and "square".

Meinong, an [[Austria]]n [[philosopher]] active at the turn of the [[20th century philosophy|20th century]], believed that since non-existent things could apparently be [[reference|referred to]], they must have some sort of [[being]], which he termed ''sosein'' ("being so"). A [[unicorn]] and a [[pegasus]] are both non-being; yet it is true that unicorns have horns and pegasi have wings. Thus non-existent things like unicorns, square circles, and golden mountains can have different properties, and must have a 'being such-and-such' even though they lack 'being' proper.<ref name=jacquette/> The strangeness of such entities led to this ontological realm being referred to as "Meinong's jungle". The jungle is described in Meinong's work ''Über Annahmen'' (1902).<ref name=kneale/> The name is credited to [[William Kneale (logician)|William C. Kneale]], whose ''Probability and Induction'' (1949) includes the passage "after wandering in Meinong's jungle of subsistence ... philosophers are now agreed that propositions cannot be regarded as ultimate entities".<ref name=kneale>{{cite book|title=Probability and Induction |first=William C. |last=Kneale |location=Oxford |publisher=Clarendon Press |year=1949 |oclc=907671 |pages=12}}</ref>

The Meinongian theory of objects (''Gegenstandstheorie'') was influential in the debate over [[sense and reference]] between [[Gottlob Frege]] and [[Bertrand Russell]] which led to the establishment of [[analytic philosophy]] and contemporary [[philosophy of language]]. Russell's [[theory of descriptions]], in the words of [[P. M. S. Hacker]], enables him to "thin out the luxuriant Meinongian jungle of entities (such as the round square), which, it had appeared, must ''in some sense'' subsist in order to be talked about".<ref name=hacker>{{cite book|last=Hacker |first=P. M. S. |authorlink=Peter Hacker |title=Insight and Illusion |publisher=Clarendon Press |location=Oxford |year=1986 |isbn=0-19-824783-4 |pages=8}}</ref> According to the theory of descriptions, speakers are not committed to asserting the existence of referents for the names they use.

Meinong's jungle is cited as an objection to Meinong's semantics, as the latter commits one to ontically undesirable objects;<ref name=jacquette>{{cite journal|last=Jacquette |first=Dale |title=On Defoliating Meinong's Jungle |journal=Axiomathes |issue=1–2 |year=1996 |volume=7 |pages=17–42|doi=10.1007/BF02357196 |s2cid=121956019}}</ref> it is desirable to be able to speak meaningfully about unicorns, the objection goes, but not to have to believe in them. [[Nominalism|Nominalists]] (who believe that general or abstract terms and [[wikt:predicate|predicates]] exist but that either [[universals]] or [[abstract objects]] do not) find Meinong's jungle particularly unpalatable.<ref>{{cite book |last=Klima |first=Gyula |editor-first=Karel |editor-last=Lambert |title=New Essays in Free Logic |publisher=Kluwer Academic Publishers |location=Boston |year=2001 |isbn=1-4020-0216-5 |chapter=Existence and Reference in Medieval Logic |pages=211}}</ref> As [[Colin McGinn]] puts it, "[g]oing naively by the linguistic appearances leads not only to logical impasse but also to metaphysical extravagance—as with Meinong's jungle, infested with shadowy Being."<ref>{{cite book |last=McGinn |first=Colin |authorlink=Colin McGinn |title=The Problem of Consciousness |publisher=Blackwell |location=Oxford |year=1993 |isbn=0-631-18803-7 |pages=105}}</ref> An uneasiness with the [[ontological commitment]]s of Meinong's theory is commonly expressed in the ''bon mot'' "we should cut back Meinong's jungle with [[Occam's razor]]".<ref>{{cite book|last=Smith|first=A. D.|title=The Problem of Perception|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2002|isbn=0-674-00841-3|location=Cambridge|pages=240|quote=Gilbert Ryle once referred to Meinong as 'the supreme entity-multiplier in the history of philosophy', and Keith Donnellan alludes to 'the Meinongian population explosion', both thereby expressing a common view that lies behind the bon mot that we should cut back Meinong's jungle with Occam's razor.}}</ref><ref>See also [[Plato's beard]] in [[W. V. O. Quine]], "[[:s:On What There Is|On What There Is]]", ''The Review of Metaphysics'' '''2''' (5), 1948.</ref>

Meinong's jungle was defended by [[modal realism|modal realists]], whose [[possible world semantics]] offered a more palatable variation of Meinong's ''Gegenstandstheorie'', as [[Jaakko Hintikka]] explains: {{quote|If you ask "Where are the non-existent objects?" the answer is, "Each in its own possible world." The only trouble with that notorious thicket, Meinong's jungle, is that it has not been zoned, plotted and divided into manageable lots, better known as possible worlds.|sign=Hintikka, Jaakko|source=''The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic'', p. 40.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hintikka |first=Jaakko |authorlink=Jaakko Hintikka |title=The Logic of Epistemology and the Epistemology of Logic |publisher=Kluwer Academic |year=1989 |isbn=0-7923-0040-8 |pages=40}}</ref>}}

However, modal realists retain the problem of explaining reference to impossible objects such as square circles. For Meinong, such objects simply have a 'being so' that precludes their having ordinary 'being'. But this entails that 'being so' in Meinong's sense is not equivalent to existing in a possible world.

== See also == {{Portal|Philosophy}} * [[Abstract object theory]] * [[Empty name]], a name without a referent * [[Extended modal realism]] * [[Fictionalism]], a theory which holds that one can talk about fictional objects without being committed to their existence * [[Meontology]] * [[Modal realism]] * [[Noneism]], the philosophical belief that there are things that do not exist * [[Nonexistence]] * [[Object of the mind]] * [[Plato's beard]] * [[Platonic realism]] * [[Theory of descriptions]] * [[Wooden iron]]

==References== {{reflist|35em}}

==Sources== * {{cite book | last = Routley | first = Richard | author-link = Richard Routley | title = Exploring Meinong's Jungle and Beyond | publisher = Departmental Monograph #3, Department of Philosophy, RSSS, Australian National University | year = 1980 }} * {{Cite book | last1 = Priest | first1 = Graham | author-link = Graham Priest | title = Towards Non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Second edition | year = 2016 | publisher = Clarendon | location = Oxford | isbn = 978-0198783602}} * {{cite book | last = Crittenden | first = Charles | title = Unreality: The Metaphysics of Fictional Objects | publisher = Cornell University Press | location = Ithaca | year = 1991 | isbn = 0-8014-2520-4 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/unrealitymetaphy00crit }} * {{cite book | last = Jacquette | first = Dale | author-link = Dale Jacquette | title = Meinongian Logic: the Semantics of Existence and Nonexistence | publisher = Walter de Gruyter | location = Berlin | year = 1997 | isbn = 3-11-014865-X }} * {{cite book | last=Zalta | first=Edward N. | author-link=Edward N. Zalta | year=1983 | title=Abstract Objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic Metaphysics | series=Synthese Library | volume=160 | location=Dordrecht, Netherlands | publisher=D. Reidel Publishing Company | isbn=978-90-277-1474-9 }}

== External links == *{{cite SEP |url-id=nonexistent-objects |title=Nonexistent Objects |last=Reicher |first=Maria|date=2006-09-07}}

[[Category:20th century in philosophy]] [[Category:Analytic philosophy]] [[Category:Abstract object theory]] [[Category:Abstraction]] [[Category:Metaphysical theories]] [[Category:Nonexistent things| ]] [[Category:Paradoxes]] [[Category:Reality]]  [[Category:Ontology]] [[Category:Metaphysical realism]] [[Category:Concepts in metaphysics]] [[Category:Modal metaphysics]]