Meinong ’ s Theory of Objects

Bernie J. Canteñs,I. Levi,D. Terrel,R. Chisholm,R. Chisholm,Reinhardt Grossmann,H. Castañeda,T. Parsons,William Rappaport,E. Sosa,R. Routley

Abstract:Meinong's theory of objects 1 has produced mixed reaction, from harsh criticisms 2 to a recent resurgence of neo-Meinongians. 3 The aspect of Meinong's theory that is relevant to this dissertation is the most controversial, namely, his treatment of non-existent objects. First, however, I will discuss Meinong's content-theory of knowledge, which was influenced by Twardowski. Second, I will discuss Meinong's view of metaphysics and its scope. Finally, I will discuss Meinong's treatment of non-existent objects. My purpose in explaining Meinong's content-theory of knowledge is to gain an insight into his understanding of the mental and its relationship to extra-mental reality. This aspect of Meinong will be important to help distinguish his theory of non-existent objects from Suárez's. 4 Moreover, it will highlight some important departures from Brentano's theory of knowledge and his understanding of the mental and its 1 The most important expressions of his theory are in Alexius Meinong, " The Theory of Objects " (hereafter " TO ") translated by relationship with extra-mental reality. At the crossroad between Suárez and Brentano lies Descartes. At the crossroad between Brentano and Meinong lies Twardowski. To present an accurate comparison of Suárez and Meinong an understanding of Descartes' and Twardowski's theories of knowledge is necessary or at least helpful. 1. Descartes' image-theory of content. There is one specific issue I want to discuss concerning Descartes' philosophy that is directly related to the subject of this dissertation: Descartes' notion of objective reality. Objective reality for Descartes is the type of reality that objects of thought, as such, have. Descartes divides thoughts into judgments, volitions and ideas. An idea, according to Descartes, is a mode of thought, but it is also an image of something. Descartes says: If these ideas are considered only in so far as they are particular modes of thought, I do not recognize any inequality among them, and all of them appear to arise from myself in the same fashion. But considering them as images, of which some represent one thing and some another, it is evident that they differ greatly among themselves. 5 In the third meditation, Descartes claims that there are three possible kinds of ideas: (1) innate, (2) fictitious and (3) adventitious. 6 Adventitious ideas are those that are caused by something in the extra-mental world, and they in some way represent things to us and serve as the only medium through which we can know …