After researching the Russell and MacColl debate, at first I didn't know about MacColl, but I became very interested in him, so I continued to research him and eventually found out more about theory of existence. In the process, I found the content of Russell and Meinong's argument about existence here. However, as I continued reading this article, it felt like MacColl and Meinong had similar views. In other words, I thought it could be summarized as Russell vs MacColl and Meinong. Is this right? And I would like to take this opportunity to learn more about existence.
7
-
1Russell claims as much in On Denoting:"Mr. MacColl regards individuals as of two sorts, real and unreal; hence he defines the null-class as the class consisting of all unreal individuals. This assumes that such phrases as 'the present King of France', which do not denote a real individual, do, nevertheless, denote an individual, but an unreal one. This is essentially Meinong's theory, which we have seen reason to reject because it conflicts with the law of contradiction." However, your own source cites several authors who say that "Russell’s Meinong is not Meinong."– ConifoldCommented May 15 at 5:36
-
1Hugh MacColl after One Hundred Years.– Mauro ALLEGRANZACommented May 15 at 6:02
-
@Conifold Thank you for your comment! I know what my mistake was.– user1274233Commented May 15 at 6:02
-
@MauroALLEGRANZA Thank you for your comment! I will see the paper you linked.– user1274233Commented May 15 at 6:04
-
@Conifold Hello, this may be a difficult request, but is it okay if I ask you a favor? I'm still confused about Russell, MacColl, and Meinong's positions on the above topic. Could you explain the positions of the three characters?– user1274233Commented May 15 at 7:13
|
Show 2 more comments