In this paper, I will first contend that semantically-based arguments in favour 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, can fit 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 only of some sorts of intentionalia, by showing how this is related to the fact that, as some have correctly maintained, intentionalia have no intrinsic nature.
How to allow for intentionalia in the jungle
VOLTOLINI, Alberto
2007-01-01
Abstract
In this paper, I will first contend that semantically-based arguments in favour 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, can fit 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 only of some sorts of intentionalia, by showing how this is related to the fact that, as some have correctly maintained, intentionalia have no intrinsic nature.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
