Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T17:51:58.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

AGAINST AGAINST NONBEING

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 March 2011

GRAHAM PRIEST*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne, University of St Andrews, and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
*
*DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA. g.priest@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract

Towards Non-Being (Priest [2005]) develops an account of the semantics of intentional predicates and operators. The account appeals to objects, both existent and non-existent, and worlds, both possible and impossible. This paper formulates replies to a number of the more interesting objections to the semantics that have been proposed since the book was published.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Symbolic Logic 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beall, J. C. (2006). Review of towards non-being. Notre Dame Philosophy Reviews. Available from: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=7503.Google Scholar
Chellas, B. (1989). Modal Logic: An Introduction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, B. (2007). Into the abyss: A critical study towards non-being. Philosophia Mathematica, 15, 94134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladyman, J. (2005). Mathematical structuralism and the identity of indiscernibles. Analysis, 65, 218221.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1990). Noneism or allism. Mind, 99, 2331. Reprinted as ch. 8 of Lewis’ Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Parsons, T. (2006). Some remarks on Graham Priest towards non-being: The logic and metaphysics of intentionality. A paper read at the Mid-West APA, Chicago, April 2006.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2005). Towards Non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2008a). Replies to Nolan and Kroon. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 208214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2008b). The closing of the mind: How the particular quantifier became existentially loaded behind our backs. Review of Symbolic Logic, 1, 4255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2009a). Neighbourhood semantics for intentional operators. Review of Symbolic Logic, 2, 360373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, G. (2009b).Not to be. In Le Poidevin, R., Simons, P., McGonical, A., and Cameron, R., editors. The Routledge Companion to Metaphysics, ch. 23. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Priest, G. (2010). Creating non-existents. In Lihoreau, F., editor. Truth in Fiction, Frankfurt, Germany: Ontos Verlag, pp. 115127.Google Scholar
Reicher, M. (2006). Non-existent objects. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from: http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/nonexistent-objects/ (referenced September 2010).Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2002). Necessary existents. In O’Hear, A., editor. Logic, Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, pp. 233251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar