« Philosophy is a Useless Major; All Praise to Philosophy | Main | Barack the Magic Suit: A Political Fairy Tale »

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Good post Dr. Vallicella. I think this really gets to the heart of the issue. This reminds me of Kit Fine's well-known objection to modal characterizations of the notion of essence. He gives the example of Socrates and his singleton set. The proposition that Socrates exists is logically equivalent to the proposition that his singleton set exists, insofar as 'logical equivalence' is the same as material equivalence in all worlds. But clearly the two propositions are not the same in meaning; and certainly, in some sense, Socrates is ontologically prior and independent of his singleton, whereas his singleton is dependent on him.

More to the point, it obviously isn't *analytically* true that Meinongianism is false.

Of course, in my experience, this will be dismissed by the Quinean as unintelligible or esoteric. Only thoroughly defined notions such as supervenience are allowed. Also, someone might object that all there is to meaning is truth-conditions (I'm thinking of someone like Donald Davidson here). However, this theory is false.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

October 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad