DOCSLIB.ORG

Monism P16ff

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

1 Intentionality in Mullā Ṣadrā Submitted by Sümeyye Parıldar to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Arab and Islamic Studies In June 2014 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature: ………………………………………………………….. 2 ABSTRACT The present study reconstructs psychological, linguistic and ontological aspects of Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy in the light of Brentano’s theory of intentionality. Brentano used intentionality as a psychological term to denote the ‘mental’ as opposed to the ‘natural’. Later, with Meinong, intentionality took an ontological commitment to assenting that ‘there are things that do not exist’. The chapters that discuss Ṣadrā’s philosophy reflect the two aspects with an investigation for the production process of intentional objects and an investigation of the status of these objects in ontology. The main aim of the research is to give an internalist and monist account for the nature of intentionality demonstrating an alternative approach to the concepts of existence and the soul. Ontologically, there is only one reality (existence) and nothing is left outside it. Accordingly, intentional objects are mental beings that are at a lower level of existence (wujūd ẓillī). The principles behind the monist ontology are: first, the gradational ontology (tashkīk) that all things are determined beings (mutamayyiz) and they are manifestations of a single reality at different levels of intensity (mutashakkik), and, second, the simplicity principle (basīṭ al-ḥaqīqa) in which existence is a simple reality that comprehends all beings whilst being the principle of multiplicity at the same time. Accordingly intentional objects are a level of existence, and share same reality. Epistemologically, all knowledge processes including external senses are regarded as internal processes in which the causal effect of the extra-mental object is reduced to being an accidental preparatory tool and faculties for the soul. Perception is always completed with the touch of imagination and the real object of perception is internally created. The soul is not the receiver of forms, but is the active agent. Moreover, the soul undergoes substantial change as the objects are being produced. The soul is then not a container of forms. It is rather the case that the forms themselves construct the soul. The last point is that knowledge is a mode of existence. This mode of being (knowledge) indeed is the very existence of the human soul. In this explanation, the soul is neither material nor immaterial per se: the soul starts her journey as a material substance and becomes more delicate and immaterial through her journey. The soul’s journey is made possible with the preparatory role of the processes of perception. Intentionality is soul’s action of creating mental forms. The products are identical to soul since soul and knowledge are identical. Consequently, intentional objects are dependent on the soul in their presence and creation. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It is a pleasure to thank many people who made this thesis possible. I shall thank the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey whose funding allowed me to spend my doctorate years in England by working on a topic I am passionate about. I am also indebted to my guarantors Ayse Ceker, Murat Cilesiz and Ali Parildar. I cannot thank them enough for their almost blind faith in me that I will finish this project. I am greatly thankful to my supervisor Professor Sajjad Rizvi who welcomed me and my research question. He not only was very patient with the slow growth of the writing material and development of ideas but also generous in sharing his precious books and strong knowledge on the latest publications. Moreover, he had been very supportive of my methodology. This gave me enough space and independence to discover my own interpretation of Ṣadrā. Especially during the completion process after the draft was finished, he offered much time and input than was expected for which I am most appreciative. I cannot thank him enough for his constant support without which I would not have been able to undertake such a project. I am also grateful to my examiners Professor Peter Adamson of the LMU in Munich and of King's College London and Dr. István Kristó-Nagy of IAIS at University of Exeter for their exceptional input and helpful comments. I am very grateful to Dr. Ibrahim Kalin who introduced me to Mullā Ṣadrā’s philosophy. In terms of the contemporary questions in this research, my education in Birmingham has been inspiring. I would not be as deeply interested in modern theories of mind and metaphysics if I did not attend Dr. Philip Goff and Dr. Nikk Effingham’s classes and without Dr. Darragh Byrne’s hard work on my development of philosophical thinking and writing. My family has been the biggest support. I would like to dedicate this study to my grandparents Nuriye, and Mustafa, Hilmi and Gülizar and their gorgeous children Ahmet Ali and Hafize. They taught me that love is real and the unending quest for wisdom is sacred. Even when I had to leave school twice for my religious choices, they encouraged me to continue and seek for knowledge and to think outside of the box. Anything good in my doing is their work. All else is my own. My warmest thanks to 4 Amine, Akif, Yasin, Büşra, Nesibe, Musab, and Asım for their patience and making me happy whenever I was down. Some golden hearted people made my stay in Exeter worth the isolation: Thanks a lot to Lara, Sherry al-Ghareeb, Agata, Jamila, Veronica Bascella, Gulay Dagdas, Pinar Celebi, Ridvan and Nurcan Kilic, Meryem Uke, Tuba Kor, Emily Lygo. I shall single out Peter and Dorinda Hulton for my special thanks, as they became a second family to me. Merve Kutuk, Cihat Arinc, Elif Tokay and Prof. Ismail Hacinebioglu know every single up and down during the rollercoaster of my PhD. Their support were with me at very critical points of my thesis. I shall lastly thank some material helpers, such as Exeter Tennis Centre, and Northcotte Theatre, Uncle Benny’s Rice, Fries To Go, and all beautiful coffees of the world and coffee houses in Exeter, especially Spire’s. 5 LIST OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT 2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3 ABBREVIATIONS 7 CHAPTER I 10 INTRODUCTION 10 1.1 WHY? 10 1.2 SOURCES AND PREVIOUS STUDIES 25 1.4 HOW? 32 1.5 THE CHAPTERS 39 2 CHAPTER II 42 HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSIONS ON INTENTIONALITY AND THE CONCEPT OF INTENTIONALITY 42 2.1 BRENTANO AND HIS HISTORIOGRAPHY 43 2.2 ON THE SOUL 48 2.2.1 Defining the Soul and its Relation to Body and the Question of Immateriality 48 2.3 SENSE PERCEPTION 60 2.4 IMAGINATION 74 2.5 CONCLUSION 97 3 CHAPTER III 100 PERCEPTION AND THE SOUL 100 3.1 EXTERNAL SENSES 103 3.2 MULLĀ ṢADRĀ AND THE EXTERNAL SENSES 116 3.3 THE UNITY OF THE SOUL 139 3.4 CONCLUSION 148 4 CHAPTER IV 152 LANGUAGE AND LOGIC 152 4.1 MULLĀ ṢADRĀ’S IDEA OF THE SOUL 156 4.2 PROPOSITION 164 4.2.1 Proposition in relation to Conception and Assent 164 4.3 SUBJECT AND PREDICATION IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER 178 6 4.4 EXISTENCE AS PREDICATE 185 4.5 TASHKĪK: IS IT HOMONYMY? 190 5 CHAPTER V 197 ONTOLOGY 197 5.1 PRIMACY OF EXISTENCE 200 5.2 PROOFS OF MENTAL EXISTENCE 211 5.2.1 1st Proof and Particularity of Mental Existents 211 5.2.2 2nd Proof and Fictionals 213 5.2.3 3rd Proof and Generalizations as a Proof of the Mental 214 5.3 WHAT IS AN INTENTIONAL OBJECT? 215 5.3.1 Meinong and Introduction of a Theory of Objects 215 5.3.2 Reductionist Answers to the Problem of Intentional Objects: Russell and Quine 220 5.4 QUEST FOR A DIFFERENT FRAME TO THE PROBLEM OF INTENTIONALITY: MENTAL EXISTENCE 223 5.4.1 Concept of Existence 223 5.4.2 Non-existence 226 5.4.3 Universals as Objects of Mental Existence 228 5.4.4 Quiddity as Objects of Mental Existence 231 5.5 CONCLUSION 236 CONCLUSION 239 BIBLIOGRAPHY 250 Primary 250 Secondary 254 7 ABBREVIATIONS Aristotle In Aristotle, (1984, 1991) The Complete Works of Aristotle, (ed.) Jonathan Barnes, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press): MR De Memoria et Reminiscentia DSS De Sensu et Sensibilibus DSV De Somno et Vigilia DA De Anima GA De Generatione Animalium DI De Interpretetione Cat.AR Categories In (ed.) Badawī, A. R., Mantīq Aristū, (Cairo: Matbaʿāt Dār al-Kutub al- Misriyya): Kat.AR Kategurias IbAR al-Ibāra/ Peri Hermenias PoAR Post Analytics Fārābī Ib.FR ʿIbāra Md.FR Madkhal DI. FR De Interpretatione Short Commentary Madīna al-Madīna al-Fāḍila Avicenna ShI Shifāʾ Ilāhiyyāt ShI tr. The Metaphysics of the Healing ShMd Shifāʾ Madkhal ShIb Shifāʾ ʿIbāra ShN Shifāʾ Nafs/ Avicenna’s De Anima ShKat Shifāʾ Kategurias/ Maqūlāt ShST al-Samāʾ al-Tabīʿī ShST tr. The Physics of the Healing Najāt Kitāb al-Najāt fī al-ḥikmat al-manṭiqiyya wa al-ṭabīʿiyya wa al-ilāhiyya Ishārāt Ishārāt wa al-tanbīhāt 8 IshRT Avicenna, Rāzī, Ṭūsī (1377-9) al-Ishārāt wa al-tanbīhāt, maʿa al-sharḥ lil-muhaqqiq Nasīr al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan al-Ṭūsī wa Sharḥ al-Sharḥ li-Qutb al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Rāzī IshM Logic tr.
Recommended publications
  • Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin

    Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin

    Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato Volume 6 Article 5 2006 Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin Ryan Feldbrugge Minnesota State University, Mankato Follow this and additional works at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur Part of the Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Feldbrugge, Ryan (2006) "Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin," Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato: Vol. 6 , Article 5. Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/jur/vol6/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Research Center at Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Undergraduate Research at Minnesota State University, Mankato by an authorized editor of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Feldbrugge: Intentionality in Kant and Wittgensetin INTENTIONALITY IN KANT AND WITTGENSTEIN Ryan Feldbrugge (Philosophy) Dr. Richard Liebendorfer, Faculty Mentor, Philosophy How is thought about and experience of a world possible? This has been the framing question of the present work and it is generally understood as the problem of intentionality. The more specific problem dealt with has been whether or not intentionality has an internal structure that can be made explicit through science, particularly cognitive science. In his Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant outlines an internal, mental structure that, when imposed on our sensory data, makes thought about and experience of a world possible, which can be viewed as highly anticipatory of modern cognitive science. On the other hand, there are a number of philosophers who have it that the structure of intentionality cannot be made explicit nor can it be understood within science, notably Ludwig Wittgenstein.
  • Intentionality and the Mental Volume IV, Number 4 (Winter 1957)

    Intentionality and the Mental Volume IV, Number 4 (Winter 1957)

    Paul E. Meehl we have a formula, and a case comes along in which it disagrees with ------APPENDIX------ our heads? Shall we then use our heads? I would say, yes-provided the psychological situation is as clear as a broken leg; otherwise, very, very seldom. EDITORS' NOTE. This article first appeared in the Tournal of Counseling Psychology, Intentionality and the Mental Volume IV, Number 4 (Winter 1957). For the assignment of copyright, we are grateful to the editor, C. Gilbert Wrenn. REFERENCES I. Cronbach, L. J., and P. E. Meehl. "Construct yalidity in Psy.chological Tests," Psychological Bulletin, 52:281-302 (1955). Reprmted m H. Fe1gl and M. Scnv~n Introduction by Wilfrid Sellars (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I, pp. 174-204. Mm­ The traditional mind-body problem is, as Herbert Feig] has amply demonstrated in neapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1956. his contribution to this volume, a veritable tangle of tangles. At first sight but one of 2. Humphreys, L. G., C. C. McArthur, P. E. Meehl, N. Sanford, ~nd _ J. Zubin. the 'problems of philosophy,' it soon turns out, as one picks at it, to be nothin& more "Clinical versus Actuarial Prediction," Proceedings of the 1955 Invitational Con- nor less than the philosophical enterprise as a whole. Yet if, to the close-up view. of ference on Testing Problems, pp. 91-141. the philosopher at work, it soon becomes a bewildering crisscross of th.r~ds l.eadmg 3. McArthur, C. C. "Analyzing the Clinical Process," Tournal of Counselmg Psy­ in all directions, it is possible to discern, on standing off, a number of d1stmgmshable chology, 1:203-207 (1954).
  • Selected Bibliography of and About Tadeusz Kotarbinski

    Selected Bibliography of and About Tadeusz Kotarbinski

    Selected bibliography of and about Tadeusz Kotarbinski https://www.ontology.co/biblio/kotarbinski-biblio.htm Theory and History of Ontology by Raul Corazzon | e-mail: [email protected] Selected Bibliography on Kotarbinski's Reism and Semantical Concretism A SELECTION OF WORKS BY KOTARBINSKI N.B. Works avalaible only in Polish are not enclosed. 1. Kotarbinski, Tadeusz. 1931. "Le Réalisme Radical." In Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Philosophy, Held at Oxford, England, September 1-6, 1930, edited by Ryle, Gilbert, 488-500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2. ———. 1935. "The Development of the Main Problem in the Methodology of Francis Bacon." Studia Philosophica no. 1:107-117. 3. ———. 1955. "The Fundamental Ideas of Pansomatism." Mind no. 64:488-500. Originally published in Polish in 1935. 4. ———. 1956. "La Logique En Pologne." Études Philosophiques no. 11:231-241. Reprinted in. Raymond Klibansky (ed.) - Philosophy in the Mid-Century. A survey - Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1958 pp. 44-52. 5. ———. 1958. "Jan Lukasiewicz's Works on the History of Logic." Studia Logica no. 8:57-62. 6. ———. 1960. "The Concept of Action." Journal of Philosophy no. 57:215-221. 7. ———. 1961. "The Property of a Good Plan." Methodos no. 13:189-201. 8. ———. 1961. "Postulates for Economic Modes of Action." Methodos no. 13:175-188. 9. ———. 1961. "The Aspiration of Praxologists." Methodos no. 13:163-174. 10. ———. 1964. Leçons Sur L'histoire De La Logique. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Original Polish edition 1957. Translated by Anna Posner and with an introduction by René Poirier 11. ———. 1965. Praxiology. An Introduction to the Sciences of Efficient Action.
  • So You Want to Do Post-Intentional Phenomenological Research?

    So You Want to Do Post-Intentional Phenomenological Research?

    The Qualitative Report Volume 24 Number 4 How To Article 15 4-22-2019 So You Want to Do Post-Intentional Phenomenological Research? Katherine E. Soule University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources Division, [email protected] Melissa Freeman University of Georgia, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr Part of the Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Quantitative, Qualitative, Comparative, and Historical Methodologies Commons, and the Social Statistics Commons Recommended APA Citation Soule, K. E., & Freeman, M. (2019). So You Want to Do Post-Intentional Phenomenological Research?. The Qualitative Report, 24(4), 857-872. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2019.3305 This How To Article is brought to you for free and open access by the The Qualitative Report at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Qualitative Report by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. So You Want to Do Post-Intentional Phenomenological Research? Abstract In this article, phenomenology, both in its philosophical and methodological variants, is introduced in the form of a fictional dialogue between a student justifying her interest in using a post-intentional phenomenological approach in her dissertation to her major professor. The dialogue tackles founding philosophers, notably Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty; contemporary researchers, including A. Giorgi, B. Giorgi, van Manen, and Vagle; several phenomenological concepts, such as intentionality, bracketing, and bridling; and provides examples of three distinct approaches to phenomenological research. Keywords Phenomenology, Post-Intentional Phenomenology, Bridling, Bracketing, Intentionality Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.
  • Transparency of Mind: the Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject

    Transparency of Mind: the Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject

    Transparency of Mind: The Contributions of Descartes, Leibniz, and Berkeley to the Genesis of the Modern Subject Gary Hat! eld Philosophers often use classical positions as paradigms for de! ning their own views, usually in contrast. In the philosophy of mind, the notion of the Cartesian subject is one such paradigm. This notion is often used to represent tendencies in the conception of the subject that today’s philosophers wish to avoid. John McDowell and Hilary Putnam 1, among others, portray the Cartesian subject – and speci! cally the Cartesian mind – as a step backward from an earlier, preferable Aristotelianism, whose concept of mind might be made serviceable today if adjusted to ! t modern science. Such paradigms, whose use is unavoidable, are typically caricatures, whether slight or gross. The Cartesian mind as standardly portrayed by McDowell, Putnam, and oth- ers 2 is a gross caricature. This would be important enough for its potential to mislead us about the actual historical development of philosophy. But even more crucially for the philosophy of mind, the use of a caricatured picture as a counterparadigm against which one de! nes one’s own, comparatively better position, can lead to a pyrrhic vic- tory that avoids or misrepresents the real problems. If the opponent has been tailored to one’s desired virtues as conquering hero, one may give the impression that one’s own position solves great problems, deeply embedded in the tradition, when in fact one has simply rejected a fairly recent problematic position, which one has perhaps also misun- derstood and misidenti! ed. 3 The Cartesian mental paradigm is frequently de! ned in terms of four factors: con- sciousness as essence, intentionality as exclusively mental, the veil of perception, and the transparency of mind.
  • Theory of Intentionality *

    Theory of Intentionality *

    Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith, “Theory of Intentionality,” in J. N. Mohanty and William R. McKenna, eds., Husserl’s Phenomenology: A Textbook (Washington, D. C.: Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology and University Press of America, 1989), pp. 147-79. Original page numbers are in <>. THEORY OF INTENTIONALITY * by Ronald McIntyre and David Woodruff Smith 1. INTENTIONALITY Intentionality is a central concept in philosophy of mind and in Husserl’s phenom­ enology. Indeed, Husserl calls intentionality the “fundamental property of consciousness” and the “principle theme of phenomenology”. Although ‘intentionality’ is a technical term in philosophy, it stands for something familiar to us all: a characteristic feature of our mental states and experiences, especially evident in what we commonly call being “conscious” or “aware”. As conscious beings, or persons, we are not merely affected by the things in our environment; we are also conscious of these things – of physical objects and events, of our own selves and other persons, of abstract objects such as numbers and propositions, and of anything else we bring before our minds. Many, perhaps most, of the events that make up our mental life – our perceptions, thoughts, beliefs, hopes, fears, and so on – have this characteristic feature of being “of” or “about” something and so giving us a sense of something in our world. When I see a tree, for example, my perception is a perception of a tree; when I think that 3 + 2 = 5, I am thinking of or about certain numbers and a relation among them; when I hope that nuclear war will never take place, my hope is about a possible future state of the world; and so on.
  • A Naturalistic Perspective on Intentionality. Interview with Daniel Dennett

    A Naturalistic Perspective on Intentionality. Interview with Daniel Dennett

    Mind & Society, 6, 2002, Vol. 3, pp. 1-12 2002, Rosenberg & Sellier, Fondazione Rosselli A naturalistic perspective on intentionality. Interview with Daniel Dennett by Marco Mirolli Marco Mirolli You describe yourself as a philosopher of mind and you reject the exhortations to get more involved in the abstract problems of ontology and of philosophy of science in general, even if the problems of the philosophy of mind and those of philosophy of science are deeply mutually dependent. I think this is an important issue because, while you say that your philosophy presupposes only the standard scientific ontology and epistemology 1, it seems to me that what you really presuppose is rather a Quinean view of ontology and epistemology, which is not so standard, even if it may well be the one we should accept. Daniel Dennett Well, maybe so, let's see. Certainly I have seen almost no reason to adopt any other ontology than Quine's; and when I look at the work in the phi- losophy of science and more particularly at the work in science, I do not find any ground yet for abandoning a Quinean view of ontology for something fancier. It could happen, but I haven't seen any reason for doing this; so if you want to say that I am vulnerable on this, that's really true. I have stated that I don't see any of the complexities of science or philosophy of mind raising ontological issues that are more sophisticated than those a Quinean ontology could handle; but I may be wrong.
  • PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We Have No

    PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We Have No

    PHIL. 555 – Fiction and Fictionalism Course Description: We have no trouble at all deploying our concept of fiction in everyday life. Yet, from a philosophical standpoint, few concepts are as problematic. Is what accounts for the difference between fictional and real representations something in the syntax (something manifest in the structure of the representation) or the semantics (the presence or absence of truth and reference), or is it a matter of pragmatics (the ways in which representations are used/intended to be used)? How should we analyze the truth- value of statements made in or about fictions? Can we learn anything from fictions, and can we make the case for literary cognitivism by drawing on the analogy between fictions and thought-experiments? What kinds of entities are fictional characters, and do they share anything in common with the entities postulated by mathematical and moral realism? This seminar will begin to address all of these questions, and touch upon the significance of the problems posed by fiction for aesthetics, metaphysics, metaethics, and the philosophy of mathematics. Schedule of Readings Week 1 Introductory Class Overview and organizational matters No readings Week 2 The Nature of Fiction I What is fiction, anyway? John Searle – The logical status of fictional discourse Gregory Currie – The Concept of Fiction David Davies – What is a literary work & The nature of fiction (Chs. 2 and 3 of Aesthetics and Literature) Week 3 The Nature of Fiction II What are fictions about? Harry Deutsch – Making Up Stories Stacy Friend – Real People in Unreal Contexts John Gibson – The Fictional and the Real Week 4 Truth in Fiction How to make it work; adding an intensional operator David K.
  • Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real

    Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real

    Kairos. Journal of Philosophy & Science 17, 2016 Center for the Philosophy of Sciences of Lisbon University Centaurs, Pegasus, Sherlock Holmes: Against the Prejudice in Favour of the Real Cristina Travanini University of Rome Tor Vergata DAAD Fellow 2015/16 – FU Berlin [email protected] Abstract Meinong’s thought has been rediscovered in recent times by analytic phi- losophy: his object theory has significant consequences in formal ontology, and especially his account of impossible objects has proved itself to be decisive in a wide range of fields, from logic up to ontology of fiction. Rejecting the traditional ‘prejudice in favour of the real’, Meinong investigates what there is not: a peculiar non-existing object is precisely the fictional object, which exemplifies a number of properties (like Sherlock Holmes, who lives in Baker Street and is an outstanding de- tective) without existing in the same way as flesh-and-blood detectives do. Fictional objects are in some sense incomplete objects, whose core of constituent properties is not completely determined. Now, what does it imply to hold that a fictional object may also occur in true statements? We shall deal with the objections raised by Rus- sell and Quine against Meinong’s view, pointing out limits and advantages of both perspectives. Keywords Ontology of fiction, Meinong, classical quantification, Quine, meta-onto- logy. DOI 10.1515/kjps-2016-0017 1. Fictional Objects. Why Should We be Interested in Them? A fictional object is an object that occurs in fictional discourse, such as novels, scripts, short stories, created by the author’s imagination, so that we cannot find it in our actual world.
  • INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS

    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS

    INTENTIONALITY Past and Future VIBS Volume 173 Robert Ginsberg Founding Editor Peter A. Redpath Executive Editor Associate Editors G. John M. Abbarno Matti Häyry Mary-Rose Barral Steven V. Hicks Gerhold K. Becker Richard T. Hull Raymond Angelo Belliotti Mark Letteri Kenneth A. Bryson Vincent L. Luizzi C. Stephen Byrum Alan Milchman H. G. Callaway George David Miller Robert A. Delfino Alan Rosenberg Rem B. Edwards Arleen L. F. Salles Andrew Fitz-Gibbon John R. Shook Francesc Forn i Argimon Eddy Souffrant William Gay Tuija Takala Dane R. Gordon Anne Waters J. Everet Green John R. Welch Heta Aleksandra Gylling Thomas F. Woods a volume in Cognitive Science CS Francesc Forn i Argimon, Editor INTENTIONALITY Past and Future Edited by Gábor Forrai and George Kampis Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Cover Design: Studio Pollmann The paper on which this book is printed meets the requirements of “ISO 9706:1994, Information and documentation - Paper for documents - Requirements for permanence”. ISBN: 90-420-1817-8 ©Editions Rodopi B.V., Amsterdam - New York, NY 2005 Printed in the Netherlands CONTENTS Preface vii List of Abbreviations ix ONE The Necessity and Nature of Mental Content 1 LAIRD ADDIS TWO Reading Brentano on the Intentionality of the Mental 15 PHILIP J. BARTOK THREE Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality 25 WILLIAM FISH FOUR Lockean Ideas as Intentional Contents 37 GÁBOR FORRAI FIVE Normativity and Mental Content 51 JUSSI HAUKIOJA SIX The Ontological and Intentional Status of Fregean Senses: An Early Account of External Content 63 GREG JESSON
  • Meinongian Merits and Maladies

    Meinongian Merits and Maladies

    Sam Hoadley-Brill | PHIL 197B | Spring 2019 1 Meinongian Merits and Maladies Willard V. Quine begins perhaps the most celebrated article on ontology of the 20th century: A curious thing about the ontological problem is its simplicity. It can be put in three Anglo-Saxon monosyllables: “What is there?” It can be answered, moreover, in a word –– “Everything” –– and everyone will accept this answer as true. However, this is merely to say that there is what there is. (1948, p. 21) Has Quine made a methodological mistake in these first few sentences? I do not wish to suggest that, because there are some theorists who deny that “Everything” is the correct answer to the ontological problem, Quine is being irresponsible in saying this answer is universally appealing; it is certainly an answer with which the vast majority of analytic philosophers would agree, in spite of their thinking it utterly uninformative and unsatisfying. But it is far from obvious that this licenses Quine’s inference that the sentences ‘Everything is’ and ‘There is whatever there is’ are semantically equivalent. Mightn’t it be true that, for something x, it is not true that there is an x? To find an answer, we must determine the semantic content of ‘something’ and ‘there is.’ According to what has long been the dominant school of thought in analytic meta-ontology–– defended not only by Quine, but also by Bertrand Russell, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, and many others––the meaning of ‘there is’ is identical to the meaning of ‘there exists.’ The most (in)famous aberration from this view is advanced by Alexius Meinong, whose ontological picture has endured extensive criticism (and borderline abuse) from several subscribers to the majority view.
  • Meinongian Semantics and Artificial Intelligence

    Meinongian Semantics and Artificial Intelligence

    Meinongian Semantics and Artificial Intelligence William J. Rapaport Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Department of Philosophy, and Center for Cognitive Science State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260-2000 [email protected] http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/ rapaport/ originally written in 1985; updated 3 February 1995; updated again, 28 June 2005 Abstract This paper introduces semantic networks to a philosophical audience and surveys several approaches to semantic-network semantics that, at the original time of writing (1985) had not previously been treated in the AI or computational- linguistics literature (but see ¡ 12), though there is a large philosophical literature investigating them in some detail. In particular, propositional semantic networks (exemplified by SNePS) are discussed, it is argued that only a fully intensional, Meinongian semantics is appropriate for them, and several Meinongian systems are presented. This paper was once allegedly forthcoming in: Simons, Peter (ed.), Essays on Meinong (Dettelbach: Roell Verlag) (or possibly Amsterdam: Rodopi Editions). A shorter version appeared as: Rapaport, William J. (1985), “Meinongian Semantics for Propositional Semantic Networks”, Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (University of Chicago) (Morristown, NJ: Association for Computational Linguistics): 43–48, [http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P85/P85-1006.pdf]. 1 1 Meinong, Philosophy, and Artificial Intelligence Philosophy has not been kind to Alexius Meinong, a late-19th/early-20th-century cognitive scientist (see Findlay 1963; Grossmann 1974; Rapaport 1978, 1991b; Routley 1979; Lambert 1983; Schubert-Kalsi 1987). Only recently (ca. 1970s) has there been a renaissance in Meinong studies. Even so, his writings are often treated as curiosities (or worse) by mainstream philosophers.