An expedition into Meinong's Jungle.
In speaking about non-existent objects like Pegasus one often hears from philosophers that the sense of the entity like Pegasus exists in a different way than a person like Nixon. Pegasus has a different sense from Nixon in that it exists as a object which is not apparent in the observable universe, whereas Nixon was an actual person who was the president of the United States.
But , there seems to be a problem with not specifying the degree of sensibility of different immaterial or non-existent entities like Pegasus or unicorns. This issue arises for example when we learn about Meinongs Jungle, which states that the plethora of non-existent objects like Pegasus or unicorns are apparently referents for stories or mythologies pertaining their "existence" to the discourse of human thought.
Now, I would like to simplify the issue and assume that the "existence" of Pegasus or unicorns is defined as their epistemic content in ordinary human affairs... to be found in an encyclopedia.
But, the issue isn't readily solved, for what are we to do about non-denoting/non-existent objects like round-squares that hide in Meinong's Jungle? After all, everything needs a name, so aren't we committed to epistemic content or the description of these non-existent objects? Wittgenstein thought that some objects were nonsensical, such as the elusive round-square. Even if we were to follow the procedure of researching the epistemic content in an encyclopedia of a round-square, we wouldn't find much on it.
Therefore, it seems that after resorting to epistemic content of non-existent objects like Pegasus or unicorns, we could put them in a zoo, but, finding an elusive round-square would be impossible. Why is that?
But , there seems to be a problem with not specifying the degree of sensibility of different immaterial or non-existent entities like Pegasus or unicorns. This issue arises for example when we learn about Meinongs Jungle, which states that the plethora of non-existent objects like Pegasus or unicorns are apparently referents for stories or mythologies pertaining their "existence" to the discourse of human thought.
Now, I would like to simplify the issue and assume that the "existence" of Pegasus or unicorns is defined as their epistemic content in ordinary human affairs... to be found in an encyclopedia.
But, the issue isn't readily solved, for what are we to do about non-denoting/non-existent objects like round-squares that hide in Meinong's Jungle? After all, everything needs a name, so aren't we committed to epistemic content or the description of these non-existent objects? Wittgenstein thought that some objects were nonsensical, such as the elusive round-square. Even if we were to follow the procedure of researching the epistemic content in an encyclopedia of a round-square, we wouldn't find much on it.
Therefore, it seems that after resorting to epistemic content of non-existent objects like Pegasus or unicorns, we could put them in a zoo, but, finding an elusive round-square would be impossible. Why is that?
Comments (11)
I don't quite understand. Are you talking about the representative theory of understanding? A la, picture theory of meaning?
Well, yes mostly. I'm not sure what you mean by lexical, semantic, and structural aspects of language in expressing being, may actually mean? Are you saying that this is just a feature of language?
Square-circles or round-squares are broadly known to be nonsensical strings of words. Where, Pegasus or unicorns aren't as questionable.
...that you are overthinking the issue. There isn't a problem here.
But, I have a question. What is the difference between Pegasus or unicorns and round-squares?
So, in your opinion, when speaking about the ontology of a unicorn, we can say it's a literary fiction. But, how do we classify round-squares?
If none can be found then the conclusion is obvious: the physical world is a proper subset of the mental world i.e. there are more mental objects than there are physical objects. Since I'm far less talented than Meinong when it comes to inventing new words, I'm simply going to use our trusty "exist" and say more mental objects exist than physical objects. What are the ramifications of this simple fact if any?
For one, the mind transcends the physical - what's physically impossible is mentally possible e.g. I can't fly physically but on occasion I do so, mentally, in my dreams and let's not forget my imagination. That's odd. Let's not ruffle any feathers here and whole-heartedly endorse physicalism but that amplifies the strangeness - how can the physical brain reach beyond the physical like this? God knows!
Meinong, a wise man by all accounts, went a step further and coined new words like "subsist" to prevent confusion which would've resulted had he relied on the word "exist" which has a distinct and obvious bias for the physical plane.
Nonexistence then is reserved for the impossible, the one I'm most familiar with being the so-called logical contradiction. A square-circle, for instance, can't be conceived of - try it! I did and I failed. Are we to now expect, after a coupla million years of evolution, another, the third level (supramental world) (the first being the physical, the second the mental) will bud out of the mental world and contradictions would be meh!? Is this what Zen koans and logical paradoxes are all about? Tentative first and therefore catch-as-catch-can steps into the supramental world :chin: