Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals. Priest, G. & Read, S. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(3):421--442, 2004. Journal doi abstract bibtex Intentional verbs create three different problems: problems of non-existence, of indeterminacy, and of failure of substitutivity. Meinongians tackle the first problem by recognizing non-existent objects; so too did many medieval logicians. Meinongians and the medievals approach the problem of indeterminacy differently, the former diagnosing an ellipsis for a propositional complement, the latter applying their theory directly to non-propositional complements. The evidence seems to favour the Meinongian approach. Faced with the third problem, Ockham argued bluntly substitutivity when the intentional complement is non-propositional; Buridan developed a novel way of resisting substitutivity. Ockham's approach is closer to the Meinongian analysis of these cases; Buridan's seems to raise difficulties for a referential semantics. The comparison between Meinongian and medieval approaches helps to bring out merits and potential pitfalls of each.
@article{ Priest2004e,
author = {Priest, Graham and Read, Stephen},
title = {Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals},
journal = {Australasian Journal of Philosophy},
year = {2004},
volume = {82},
pages = {421--442},
number = {3},
doi = {10.1080/713659877},
urljournal = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659877},
abstract = {Intentional verbs create three different problems: problems of non-existence,
of indeterminacy, and of failure of substitutivity. Meinongians tackle
the first problem by recognizing non-existent objects; so too did
many medieval logicians. Meinongians and the medievals approach the
problem of indeterminacy differently, the former diagnosing an ellipsis
for a propositional complement, the latter applying their theory
directly to non-propositional complements. The evidence seems to
favour the Meinongian approach. Faced with the third problem, Ockham
argued bluntly substitutivity when the intentional complement is
non-propositional; Buridan developed a novel way of resisting substitutivity.
Ockham's approach is closer to the Meinongian analysis of these cases;
Buridan's seems to raise difficulties for a referential semantics.
The comparison between Meinongian and medieval approaches helps to
bring out merits and potential pitfalls of each.},
keywords = {Objects}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":{"_str":"534224b4ecd21cdc070007bb"},"__v":2,"authorIDs":["545e77916aaec20d2300084d"],"author_short":["Priest, G.","Read, S."],"bibbaseid":"priest-read-intentionalitymeinongianismandthemedievals-2004","bibdata":{"abstract":"Intentional verbs create three different problems: problems of non-existence, of indeterminacy, and of failure of substitutivity. Meinongians tackle the first problem by recognizing non-existent objects; so too did many medieval logicians. Meinongians and the medievals approach the problem of indeterminacy differently, the former diagnosing an ellipsis for a propositional complement, the latter applying their theory directly to non-propositional complements. The evidence seems to favour the Meinongian approach. Faced with the third problem, Ockham argued bluntly substitutivity when the intentional complement is non-propositional; Buridan developed a novel way of resisting substitutivity. Ockham's approach is closer to the Meinongian analysis of these cases; Buridan's seems to raise difficulties for a referential semantics. The comparison between Meinongian and medieval approaches helps to bring out merits and potential pitfalls of each.","author":["Priest, Graham","Read, Stephen"],"author_short":["Priest, G.","Read, S."],"bibtex":"@article{ Priest2004e,\n author = {Priest, Graham and Read, Stephen},\n title = {Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals},\n journal = {Australasian Journal of Philosophy},\n year = {2004},\n volume = {82},\n pages = {421--442},\n number = {3},\n doi = {10.1080/713659877},\n urljournal = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659877},\n abstract = {Intentional verbs create three different problems: problems of non-existence,\n\tof indeterminacy, and of failure of substitutivity. Meinongians tackle\n\tthe first problem by recognizing non-existent objects; so too did\n\tmany medieval logicians. Meinongians and the medievals approach the\n\tproblem of indeterminacy differently, the former diagnosing an ellipsis\n\tfor a propositional complement, the latter applying their theory\n\tdirectly to non-propositional complements. The evidence seems to\n\tfavour the Meinongian approach. Faced with the third problem, Ockham\n\targued bluntly substitutivity when the intentional complement is\n\tnon-propositional; Buridan developed a novel way of resisting substitutivity.\n\tOckham's approach is closer to the Meinongian analysis of these cases;\n\tBuridan's seems to raise difficulties for a referential semantics.\n\tThe comparison between Meinongian and medieval approaches helps to\n\tbring out merits and potential pitfalls of each.},\n keywords = {Objects}\n}","bibtype":"article","doi":"10.1080/713659877","id":"Priest2004e","journal":"Australasian Journal of Philosophy","key":"Priest2004e","keywords":"Objects","number":"3","pages":"421--442","title":"Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals","type":"article","urljournal":"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659877","volume":"82","year":"2004","bibbaseid":"priest-read-intentionalitymeinongianismandthemedievals-2004","role":"author","urls":{"Journal":"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713659877"},"keyword":["Objects"],"downloads":0,"html":""},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://www.davidjohnsweeney.net/Papers/Priest_Papers.bib","downloads":0,"keywords":["objects"],"search_terms":["intentionality","meinongianism","medievals","priest","read"],"title":"Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals","year":2004,"dataSources":["f3eXh4mHxBQMWiadr"]}