Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals. Priest, G. & Read, S. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 82(3):421--442, 2004.
Intentionality: Meinongianism and the Medievals [link]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