Advertisement

Res, Ens and Aliquid

Chapter
  • 138 Downloads
Part of the Nijhoff International Philosophy Series book series (NIPS, volume 53)

Abstract

There are conceptual distinctions that have been repeatedly introduced into philosophical reflection and that have been correspondingly disappeared into nothingness without leaving a visible trace of their presence. The systematic constant disappearance of these distinctions after short periods of presence means perhaps that it is a question of false distinctions. But the fact that they keep on appearing again in different philosophical contexts, theories and systems perhaps sends us back to the presence of a theoretical impasse or of a conceptual knot which is not solved yet.

Keywords

General Object Material Constituent Constitutive Idealization Formal Ontology Quantifiable Variable 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelardo 1969: Scritti di logica, edited by M. Dal Pra, 2 ed., La Nuova Italia, Firenze.Google Scholar
  2. Albertazzi, L. 1989: Strati, Reverdito, Trento.Google Scholar
  3. Albertazzi, L. 1991a: “Nominalismo e critica della lingua in Franz Brentano”, Idee, vol. 13–15, 217–235.Google Scholar
  4. Albertazzi, L. 1991b: “Brentano and Mauthner’s critique of language”, Brentano Studien 2, 145–157.Google Scholar
  5. Albertazzi, L. 1992: “Is there a transcendental object?”, in Paśniczek 1992, 26–44.Google Scholar
  6. Aristotle: Metaphysica, tr. by W.D. Ross, Oxford U.P., Oxford, 1908.Google Scholar
  7. Aristotle: Categoriae and De Interpretation, tr. by E.M. Edghill, Oxford U.P., Oxford, 1928.Google Scholar
  8. Armstrong, D.M. 1978: Universals and scientific realism, Cambridge U.P., Cambridge (vol. 1: Nominalism and realism; vol. 2: A theory of universals). Google Scholar
  9. Brentano, F. 1966: The True and the Evident, Routledge, London (Wahrheit und Evidenz, Meiner, Hamburg 1962).Google Scholar
  10. Burkhardt, H. and Smith, B. (eds.) 1991: Handbook of Metaphysics and Ontology, Philosophia, Munich.Google Scholar
  11. Chisholm, R. (ed.) 1960: Realism and the background of phenomenology, The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill.Google Scholar
  12. Cocchiarella, N. 1972: “Properties as individuals in formal ontology”, Nous 6, 165–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cocchiarella, N. 1974: “Formal ontology and the foundations on mathematics”, in Nakhnikian 1974, 29–46.Google Scholar
  14. Cocchiarella, N. 1978: “On the logic of nominalized predicates and its philosophical interpre tations”, Erkenntnis 13, 339–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cocchiarella, N. 1986a: “Conceptualism, ramified logic and nominalized predicates”, Topoi 2, 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cocchiarella, N. 1986b: Logical investigations of predication theory and the problem of universals, Bibliopolis, Napoli.Google Scholar
  17. Cocchiarella, N. 1989a: “Conceptualism, realism, and intensional logic”, Topoi 5, 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cocchiarella, N. 1989b: “Philosophical perspectives on formal theories of predication”, in Gabbay and Guenthner 1992, 254–326.Google Scholar
  19. Cocchiarella, N. 1991: “Ontology II: formal ontology”, in Burkhardt and Smith 1991, 640–47.Google Scholar
  20. Czezowski, T. 1948: O metafizyce, jej kierunkach i zagadnieniach [Metaphysics, its directions and problems], Ksiegarnia naukowa, Toruri.Google Scholar
  21. Elie, H. 1936: Le complexe significabile, Vrin, Paris.Google Scholar
  22. Epstein, R.L. 1990: The semantic foundations of logic. Volume I: Propositional logics, Kluwer, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fausti, G. 1947: Teoria dell’astrazione, Cedam, Padova.Google Scholar
  24. Findlay, J.N. 1963: Meinong’s theory of objects, Oxford U. P., Oxford (1933).Google Scholar
  25. Fine, K. 1985: Reasoning with arbitrary objects, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Forbes, G. 1992: “Worlds and states of affairs: how similar can they be”, in Mulligan 1992, 118–132.Google Scholar
  27. Gabbay, D. and Guenthner, F. (eds.) 1989: Handbook of philosophical logic, vol. IV, Dordrecht, Reidel.Google Scholar
  28. Grossman, R. 1983: The categorial structure of the world, Indiana U. P., Bloomington.Google Scholar
  29. Haller, R. and Gombocz, L. (eds) 1984: Ästhetik/Aesthetics. Proceedings of the 8th International Wittgenstein-Symposium, I, Holder — Pichler — Tempsky, Wien.Google Scholar
  30. Haller, R. and Brandi, J. (eds.) 1990: Wittgenstein. Eine Neubewertung. Towards a Re-evaluation. Proceedings of the 14th International Wittgenstein-Symposium, Hölder — Pichler — Tempsky, Wien.Google Scholar
  31. Harvey C.W. and Hintikka J. 1991: “Modalization and modalities”, in Seebohm, Frillesdal and Mohanty 1991,59–77.Google Scholar
  32. Henry, D. 1972: Medieval logic and metaphysics, Hutchinson University Library, London.Google Scholar
  33. Henry, D. 1984: That most subtle question (Questio subtilissima): The metaphysical bearing of medieval and contemporary linguistic disciplines, Manchester U. P., Manchester.Google Scholar
  34. Henry, D. 1991: Medieval mereology, Grüner, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  35. Hochberg, H. 1992: “Truth makers, truth predicates, and truth types”, in Mulligan 1992, 86–117.Google Scholar
  36. Husserl, E. 1969: Formal and transcendental logic, Nijhoff, The Hague (Formale und transzendentale Logik, Husserliana XVII, 1974; 1st ed. 1929).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ingarden, R. 1939–40: “The scientific activity of Kazimierz Twardowski”, Studia philosophica, 17–30.Google Scholar
  38. Kaplan, D. 1970: “What is Russell’s theory of descriptions?”, in Yourgrau 1970.Google Scholar
  39. Kerry, B. 1885–1891: “Über Anschauung und ihre psychische Verarbeitung”, Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie, (8 papers: 9 (1885), 433–493; 10 (1886), 419–467; 11 (1887), 53–116; 11 (1887), 249–307; 13 (1889), 71–124; 13 (1889), 392–419; 14 (1890), 317–353; 15 (1891), 127–167).Google Scholar
  40. Laerzio, D. 1925: Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 2 voll., London.Google Scholar
  41. Lambert, K. 1983: Meinong and the principle of independence, Cambridge U. P., Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Mally, E. 1904: “Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie des Messens”, in Meinong 1904, 121–262.Google Scholar
  43. Mally, E. 1912: Gegenstandstheoretische Grundlagen der Logik und Logistik, Barth, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  44. Meinong, A. 1904: Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie, Barth, Leipzig.Google Scholar
  45. Meinong, A. 1960: “The theory of objects”, in Chisholm 1960, 76–117 (“Über Gegenstandstheorie”, in Untersuchungen zur Gegenstandstheorie und Psychologie, Barth, Leipzig 1904).Google Scholar
  46. Meinong, A. 1983: On Assumptions, University of California Press, Berkeley (Über Annahmen, Barth, Leipzig (1902; 2nd amply revised ed. 1910)).Google Scholar
  47. Meixner, U. 1992: “On negative and disjunctive properties”, in Mulligan 1992, 28–36.Google Scholar
  48. Melandri, E. 1989: Contro il simbolico. Died lezioni di filosofia, Ponte alle grazie, Firenze.Google Scholar
  49. Mulligan, K. (ed.) 1992: Language, Truth and Ontology, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  50. Nakhnikian, G. 1974: Bertrand Russell’s Philosophy, Duckworth, London.Google Scholar
  51. Parikh, R. 1975: Logic Colloquium, Springer, Wien.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons, T. 1980: Nonexistent Objects, Yale U. P., New Haven.Google Scholar
  53. Paśniczek, J. (ed.) 1992: Theory of Objects: Meinong and Twardowski, Lublin, KUL.Google Scholar
  54. Perzanowski, J. 1984: “Some Ontological and Semantical Puzzles of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus”, in Haller and Gombocz 1984, 224–30.Google Scholar
  55. Perzanowski, J. 1990: “Towards Post-Tractatus Ontology”, in Haller and Brandi 1990, vol. 1, 185–99.Google Scholar
  56. Perzanowski, J. 1993: “What is Non-Fregean in the Semantics of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus and Why?”, Axiomathes 4, 357–372 (“Ce qu’il y a de non Frégéen dans la sémantique du Tractatus de Wittgenstein, et pourquoi”, in Sebestik and Soulez 1992, 163–77).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poli, R. 1988: “Astrazione e idealizzazione”, Verifiche 17, 189–207.Google Scholar
  58. Poli, R. 1990: “Ernst Mally’s theory of properties”, Grazer Philosophische Studien, vol 38, 115–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poli, R. 1992a: “La scomparsa del logoforo. Alle radici del declino della metafisica”, forthcoming in Idee. Google Scholar
  60. Poli, R. 1992b: “Twardowski and Wolff, in Paśniczek 1992, 45–56.Google Scholar
  61. Poli, R. 1992c: Ontologia formale, Marietti, Genova.Google Scholar
  62. Poli, R. 1993a: “Ontologia e logica in Franz Brentano: giudizi categorici e giudizi tetici”, Epistemologia, 16, 39–76.Google Scholar
  63. Poli, R. 1993b: “Understanding Mally”, forthcoming in the proceedings of the Mally conference, Salzburg 1992.Google Scholar
  64. Poli, R. 1993c: “Husserl’s Conception of Formal Ontology”, History and Philosophy of Logic 14, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poli, R., Dappiano, L. and Libardi, M. 1993: “Aspetti della teoria aristotelica delle parti e dell’intero”, Paradigmi 11, 593–626.Google Scholar
  66. Quine, W.V.O. 1960: Word and Object, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  67. Routley, R. 1980: Exploring Meinong’s Jungle, Philosophy Department, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
  68. Santambrogio, M. 1987: “Generic and Intensional objects”, Synthese 73, 637–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Santambrogio, M. 1992: “Was Frege right about variable objects?”, in Mulligan 1992, 133–156.Google Scholar
  70. Sebestik, J. and Soulez, A. (eds.) 1992: Wittgenstein et la philosophie aujourd’hui, Méridien Klincksieck, Paris.Google Scholar
  71. Seebohm T.S., Frøllesdal D. and Mohanty J.N. (eds.) 1991: Phenomenology and the formal sciences, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  72. Simons, P. 1992: “Logical atomism and its ontological refinement: a defense”, in Mulligan 1992, 157–179.Google Scholar
  73. Smith, B. 1982: Parts and Moments, Philosophia, München.Google Scholar
  74. Smith, B. 1992: “Characteristica universalis”, in Mulligan 1992, 48–77.Google Scholar
  75. Sommers, F. 1982: The Logic of Natural Language, Clarendon, Oxford.Google Scholar
  76. Suszko, R. 1975: “Abolition of the Fregean Axiom”, in Parikh 1975, 169–239.Google Scholar
  77. Suszko, R. 1977: “The Fregean Axiom and Polish Mathematical Logic in the 1920s”, Studia Logica 36, 151–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Twardowski, K. 1977: On the Content and Object of Presentations, Nijhoff, Amsterdam (Zur Lehre vom Inhalt und Gegenstand der Vorstellungen, Hölder, Wien 1894; reprint Philosophia, München 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Überweg, F. 1915: Geschichte der Philosophie, II, Mittler, Tübingen (12th ed.).Google Scholar
  80. Vaihinger, H. 1911: Die Philosophie des Als ob, Meiner, Hamburg.Google Scholar
  81. Yourgrau, W. et. al., Physics, Logic and History, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Zalta, E. 1983: Abstract Objects, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zalta, E. 1988: Intensional logic and the metaphysics of intentionality, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.).Google Scholar
  84. Zanatta, M. 1989: “La genesi e il significato dottrinale delle categorie”, introduction to Aristotele 1989: Le categorie, Rizzoli, Milano, 7–298.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1996

Authors and Affiliations

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations