Anti-Meinongian philosophers, such as Russell, do not explain what they mean by existence when they deny that there are nonexistent objects — they just sense robustly. I argue that any plausible explanation of what they mean tends to undermine their view and to support the Meinongian view. But why are they so strongly convinced that they are right? I argue that the reason is to be found in the special character of the concept of existence, which has been insufficiently examined by anti-Meinongian as well as by Meinongian philosophers.

This essay argues for the importance of developing theories of nonexistent objects. The grounds are utility and smoothness of logical theory. In the latter case a parallel with the theory of negative and imaginary numbers is exploited. The essay concludes with a counterexample to a general argument against the enterprise of developing theories of nonexistent objects, and outlining the foremost problem an adequate theory of nonexistent objects must solve.

In a recent book, K. Lambert argues that philosophers should adopt Mally's Principle of Independence (the principle that an object can have properties even though it lacks being of any kind) by abandoning a constraint on true predications, namely, that all of the singular terms in a true predication denote objects which have being. The constraint may be abandoned either by supposing there is a true predication in which one of the terms denotes a beingless object (Meinong) or by supposing there is a true predication in which one of the terms denotes nothing at all (free logic). However, Lambert's conclusions can be undermined by showing that the data he produces in support of his position can be explained by either of two recent theories of abstract and nonexistent objects, both of which are couched in languages which conform to the traditional constraint.

Parmenides didn't mention reference as such, but if he had he would have undoubtedly agreed with the philosophers who nowadays hold what is called "the axiom of existence": that one can only refer to what exists. The sources of possible support for this view are examined and rejected. Primary support for the axiom is given by two sorts of argument; one concerning quantification, the other summarizing a standard Parmenidean puzzle. Weaknesses in both are exposed. Finally, the relations between the axiom and connected claims about predication and truth are probed, and an attempt is made to determine the limits of the mutual support these claims give one another.

This is an investigation into the fundamental connections between the referential use of language and our rich human experience. All types of experience — perceptual, practical, scientific, literary, esthetic, ludic, ... — are tightly unified into one total experience by the structure of reference to real or possible items. Singular reference is essential for locating ourselves in our own corner of the world. General reference, by means of quantifiers, is our main tool in ascertaining the accessible patterns of the world. Both are primitive and mutually irreducible. (Often this has been denied.) The unity of total experience is constructed through the biographical unity of a person, and the sociological unity of the communications across a community. This unity of experience is wrought out by an underlying unitary system of reference. We need, therefore, a comprehensive theory of individuation, existence, predication, and truth. One such a theory is Guise Theory.

1. Sensa and propositional experience. 2. An option between propositions and properties (as objects or contents of sensory experience). 3. The property option and adverbialism. 4. Sensa as images, images as intentionalia. 5. Do we refer directly to sensa? 6. Focusing and the supervenience of images and our reference to them: a question raised. 7. Internal and external properties of images and characters. Strict vistas introduced. 8. A correction on strict vistas. 9. Focusing and experience: the question answered. 10. Conclusion.

Two connected themes have been at the core of the old perplexity regarding thinking and speaking about non-existent objects. One involves a question of reference. Can we refer to non-existent objects without, thereby, recognizing, in some sense, non-existent entities as objects of reference? The other involves a question about existence. Is existence a property representable by a predicate in a logically adequate symbohsm? It is argued (1) that existence is not to be construed as an attribute represented by a predicate, (2) that nonnaming names introduce problems, not solutions to problems, (3) that purported properties such as self-identical are specious, and (4) that the Russell property is also seen to be specious by our consideration of predication.

Für die Sinnesdatenphilosophie sind zwei Behauptungen zentral: (1) Der sinnliche Gehalt des sinnlich-perzeptiven Bewußtseins ist gegenständlich oder objektual aufzufassen, d.h. es gibt Sinnesdaten oder phänomenale Gegenstände mit phänomenalen Beschaffenheiten; (2) Das sinnlich-perzeptive Bewußtsein ist nach dem Modell: Subjekt — zweistelliges Prädikat — Objekt zu analysieren, d.h. Sinnesdaten sind uns als Objekte unseres sinnlich-perzeptiven Bewußtseins unmittelbar gegeben. Die Annahmen (l)und (2) führen in philosophische Aporien. Es ist jedoch möglich, den sinnlichen Gehalt des sinnlich-perzeptiven Bewußtseins nicht-gegenständlich aufzufassen und nach einem Modell zu analysieren, welches eine solche Vergegenständlichung und die damit verbundenen Probleme vermeidet. Die sich gegen ein solches nicht-objektuales oder adverbiales Analysemodell erhebenden phänomenologischen und semantischen Einwände lassen sich entkräften.

The general claim of the present paper is that there may be a very large variety of ways of thinking quite different from one another, not actually in violation of formal canons of consistency, that may vary historically, from community to community or even from context to context. In particular it is argued that, given the present state of theorizing in cognitive science, it is unlikely that any defensible version of the Representational Theory of Mind could preclude a strong or emergent form of concept learning. An argument is presented showing that a Nativist reading of the theory is either undermined by the implications of its own assumptions or is formulably defective with respect to them in a way that may be impossible to remedy — or can only be secured by the fiat of denying this novel sort of concept learning. To account for the puzzles discussed in the paper a new approach to the analysis of thinking is suggested taking as its basis Wittgenstein's notion of 'forms of life' instead of the models favored in current conceptions of cognitive science.

Over the past fifteen years or so the distinction between de diclo and de re modality has been revived and pressed into service in a number of areas of philosophy. In "Plantinga on the De Dicto/De Re Distinction" it is argued that one prominent argument/persuasion advanced for making the distinction in the first place is unsound. The argument for making the distinction attempts to elicit rational acceptance of it by clearly illustrating it with a proposition that is false when modal-fied de dicto, true when modalfied de re. However, i f the example (and ones like it) is critically scrutinized, and the distinction between referential and attributive uses of definite descriptions carefully adhered to, doubt can be cast on whether our intuitions regarding the case are really, at base, intuitions about a different and distinct form of modality, de re modality.

It is argued that a pure coherence theory of epistemic empirical justification fails to avoid an isolation objection according to which empirical justification has been divorced from one's total empirical evidence. Also, it is shown that several recent efforts to meet this objection either are outright failures or are irrelevant inasmuch as they diverge from epistemic coherentism. The overall moral is that we should look beyond coherentism for an adequate theory of epistemic empirical justification.

It is widely held that oblique contexts and indexical terms present difficulties to Frege's theory of sense. The aim of the present paper is to show that a simple device involving no revision of Frege's semantic doctrine resolves all the alleged difficulties. A simple extension of Frege's notation is proposed which makes it possible to translate oblique contexts into the concept script.

The following topics are touched upon: the nature of categorial frameworks; the failure of transcendental deductions; the difference between immanent and transcendent metaphysics; a distinction between dependent and independent particulars; the role of idealization in scientific thinking; the logic of inexact concepts; the place of modal logic in immanent metaphysics; the problem of logical relevance; the role of metaphysics in mathemathical thinking; the development of mathematical concepts; the relation be ween exhibition- and replacement-analysis; the logical structure of practical thinking; the possibility of rational argument on moral issues.

Conservative criticisms of egalitarianism are examined. Entitlement and desert based accounts of justice are assessed. Nisbet's, Nozick's and Flew's accounts, as paradigms of conservative views, are criticized and liberal egalitarian and radical egalitarian accounts of justice, in their responses to conservatism, are contrasted and a defense is provided for radical egalitarianism. A secure place for entitlements is found within an egalitarian frame work. Liberty and equality are shown to be so reciprocally related that one cannot flourish without the other and socialism and egalitarianism are shown not to be enemies of liberty. Personal property remains intact under socialism but private productive property does not. But the non-existence of the latter is perfectly compatible with the existence of the full range of basic liberties. Following a coherentist methodology respect for entitlements, for liberty and a commitment to equality are shown to be in reflective equilibrium.

French epistemology of mathematics — Cavailles, Lautman, Herbrand — took a critical position about the project for a theory of science stated by the Vienna Circle. The opportunity was provided by the International Congress of Philosophy of Science celebrated in Prague in 1936. The position taken by Cavailles and Lautmann was surprisingly close to that taken by Tarski's introduction of semantics and to Wittgenstein's Tractatus. More specifically, to those parts of the Tractatus that were disqualified by Carnap. This criticism will be a part of what would later constitute "mathematical philosophy".

For placing the contrast of certainty and uncertainty at the philosophical center, Descartes is charged with Michael Dummett with mistakenly subordinating the study of language and meaning to epistemology. But Dummett's knowledge-theoretic reading of the certainty/uncertainty duality is as erroneous as the tradition it inherits is long. The Cartesian demand for certainty and critique of uncertainty in mature writings like the Meditations has a definite semantic character. Cartesian uncertainty, construed aright, anticipates Dummett's putatively original idea of a non-reductive yet non-realist semantics for standard factual claims asserted on the basis of sense-evidence. There is an internal relation, in Descartes' philosophy, between a repudiation of uncertainty and a repudiation of a non-realist conception of the world.