Meinongian Issue - Essay Example

? Running Head: Menongian Issue Meinongian Issue The Meinongan Issue; Truth in Fiction Introduction Thereis normally a cliche saying that the absence of evidence is never the evidence of absence. This is a background against which the existence of truth in a fiction may actually be premised upon. Whenever something is said to be non-existent it is normally because there has never been any evidence of presence. There are many doubts regarding the conception of non-existence. Some philosophers argue that this is because for something to be truly and accurately be claimed to be non-existent there must have in the first place existed some presupposition of its existence. In Meinongan issue, there is an in-depth examination of several issues that arise in view of the connection that there are actually some things and factors which are actually non-existent. Philosophers normally seek to examine the following questions in determining if an object or certain subject is actually not existent: What is the basis or reasons for declaring that certain objects are in fact not existent? Assuming there are any nonexistent objects, what are their kinds and how are they determined? What are the criteria of the characterization of these objects as nonexistent? The position brought by fictions takes a story telling dimension. While a story teller is telling a fictional story the characters are actually his creations. As objects of his creation, a storyteller has the power to give the characters of his story qualities whose existence are not existent in the real world. The imagination of a person normally remains mere imagination. The objects just exist in abstraction. The theory of intentionality as discussed later normally tells how we can intend our mental ability to view some objects differently. It is a fact that fictional story telling is a narration full of hyperbolic instances and can be said to be an act of pretence. The fictional discourse is discussed further below. Nonexistent objects as a concept Some philosophers, for example, Hume are of the opinion that the concept of nonexistent objects is in itself a paradox1. This stems from the idea that for anything to be declared not to exist is dependent on the fact that it had been initially presupposed to have existed. Such philosophers believe in what can be termed as positive identification of objects. This is to say that we can only identify what we can prove and substantiate. We can never talk of something as nonexistent yet we do not have proof of that. Other philosophers (Kant) explain that whatever exists is actually a real predicate2. He went ahead to explain this using God’s existence as an analogy. He inferred to the existence of God out of “ontological proof”. This is out of God’s perfection in creation. He also used other qualities of God such being omnipresent to cement his argument of existence as a real predicate. Assuming that these philosophers are right, this means then that the concept of nonexistent is not real. This is because it can never be a real predicate. Proving nonexistence evidentially is impossible. This therefore draws a conclusion that the concept of nonexistent is to a greater extent a self contradictory concept. In fact some philosophers state that the concept is actually and to some extent a violation of logical semantic flow of grammar. In order to believe in the concept of nonexistent there is need to ignore to some extent the views put across by some philosophers regarding this. Here the view that is adopted depends heavily on the predicate of individuals. This is stemmed from personal conception and what views a person may be having concerning the existence or non existence of an object. For instance, this can be illustrated by sentiments such as “some white elephants do exist”. From the statement it is inferred that not all white elephants are actually in existence. There are some particular white elephants that do not exist. The idea being stressed here is that in order to assert that a certain object or concept does not exist it is a must to assert that the object actually exists. The presence must be presupposed before the absence is inferred. To put in simpler terms, in order to assume that there are nonexistent objects it is normally important to acknowledge that the nonexistent objects actually exist. There is a question that comes in question here, does the term “exist” refer to the same meaning as construed by the term “there is”. There are philosophers who reject the distinction between the two terms (Lewis 1990, priest, 2005). On the same note, there are some philosophers who actually believe that there are good reasons to make the distinction between the two terms. There are some philosophers who take the term “there is” to be a quantifiable description of an object. Such philosophers take the term “exist” to mean the actual presence of an object. This therefore means that for some object to be there, there same must actually “exist” first. Some other philosophers have actually rejected this idea. Some are of the opinion that the words are actually synonymous and can be actually be used interchangeably3. The theory of objects and the principle of intentionality The theory of objects was actually advance by one Alexius Meinong, an Australian philosopher (1853-1920). When talking about existence and nonexistence of objects, this theory is actually the foundation the objects form the subject matter of the whole discussion. While the theory of objects is concerned with actual objects the principle of intentionality seeks to demonstrate the role played by mental directedness towards a certain object4. The principle of intentionality shows existence of some conditions that are actually present towards particular object. For instance, to love is the expressional of emotional attachment towards a certain object. Therefore principle of intentionality is actually dealing with the mental expressions towards certain objects. Problems arise when people normally begun imagining about objects that do not exist5. A good example is when we talk about ghosts and the devil. While it is normally easy to connect existence of God with the alleged perfection of his creation, the same is not easy to connect the devil with the evil acts on earth. In fact it is even harder to say what the devil looks like. It is more of an imagination. Some philosophers say that there are people who fear the devil despite the fact that the devil does not exist. Such imaginations are examples that counter and challenge the principle of intentionality. From this, philosophers have come up with the conclusion that the principle of intentionality does not necessarily apply to real objects. Thus it is therefore according to the principle to actually imagine objects that do not exist. The mental state is believed to have the capability to come with the imagination of anything or any object. The existence of the imagined object shall be in a manner that befits the imagination. Such imaginations are quite common in fictional discourses. In fictional discourses there is normally connection of an object with mainly nonexistent characteristics. The place of definitive description Particular definition of an object easily makes it possible to bring out the concept of nonexistence of objects6. Take for instance, a statement such as “the flying horse from the Greek mythology”. This statement means that in Greek mythology there were many horses. However, among these many horses there was one particular horse that existed. This theory is known as definitive theory in the philosophical studies. Another category of these definitive descriptions include the proper nouns. It is imperative to note that despite all this, it is still evident that to assert that a certain properly described object does not exist, the presupposition of its existence is still paramount. The theory of definitive description is faced with two major challenges. The first one is that the paraphrasing of a statement changes the actual meaning of a statement. A good example is that in the statement with flying horse from Greek mythology, the removal of the word “the” totally changes the meaning and to a greater extent affects the intended description. The second problem facing the theory of definitive description is that some philosophers believe that interpretation of these definitive descriptions is normally prone to yield wrong results. For instance, a statement like “the ancient Egyptians worshipped gods” has to two objects that are to be interpreted. The first one is the “ancient Egyptians” while the second one is “pyramids”. The two objects are related. The article before the word ancient Egyptians offer a definite description. The word gods is not a definitive description and it is difficult to determine whether it refers to idols created by the ancient Egyptians or whether the gods just existed in abstraction. The Fictional discourse The fictional discourse is normally founded on fictional objects7. Fictional objects are also known as imaginary objects which are actually nonexistent. For instance, there are stories with ogres and ghosts. These are normally imagined creatures. The fictional story teller uses words to create a picture of the imaginary objects. In some instances, a story teller may create an object that appears to exist but then the object is given qualities that are not really existent. A good example is the fictional stories such as those of Sherlock Holmes. While the object may appear realistic the existence is not there. It is merely the pretence of the story teller that is actually in play. The fictional discourse normally tries to connect an existing object to nonexistent qualities or characteristics. For instance, in a certain fiction we may come across a statement like “Pegasus was a flying horse”. Here there is a horse, an existent object. However, we are told that this horse is actually a flying one. It is quite clear that horses don’t fly. This connection is what the fictional discourse tries to bring out8. Sometimes the fictional discourse creates an object that does not actually exist. For instance, a fictitious story may be about a certain science situation never to have occurred before. In other instances, a fiction discourse creates an object that actually exists and even goes ahead and gives the object some characters that exist but the character is not connected to the object in its existence9. For instance, a fictitious story which has a snake which can talk illustrates the fictitious discourse between existent objects. Snakes are in existence and so are talking. However, a snake that can talk is actually not existent. Conclusion Meinongan issues are a spectrum of issues concerning the theory of objects. The spectrum of issues is quite wide and includes factors such as the existence and nonexistence of the same objects. The theory of objects was actually an ontological account as seeking to recognize both objects that are existent and those that are not. There are different theories which seek to explain the concept of existence and nonexistence of objects. Bibliography Alai, Mario, Speaking Of Nonexistent Objects in Raspe Venazio, Meinongan Issues in Contemporary Italian Philosophy, Husentamm: Ontos, 2006, 119-159. Castaneda Hector-Neri, “Fiction and Reality: Their Fundamental Connections. An Essay on the Ontology of Total Experience, Poetics, 8, 1979, 31-62. Searle, John R, Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge. Cambridge University of Cambridge Press, 1983. Simon, Peter M, “Meinong’s contribution to the Development of Non-Classical Logic” Conceptus, 27 (71), 1994, 187-202. Smith, David W, “Meinongan Objects” Grazer Philosophical Studies 1, 1975, 43-71 Voltolini, Alberto, “How Ficta Follow Fiction: A Syncretic Account of Fictional Objects”, Dordretch, Springer, 2006. Zalta, Edward N, “Intesional Logic & the Metaphysics of intentionality”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988. Zemmah, Eddy M, “Emotion & Fictional Beings”, Journal of Aesthetics in Art Criticism, 54, 1996, 41-48. Read More