Article/Publication Details
Views: 621

MEINONG: A NEW READING OR IMMERSION IN TRADITION

Abstract
This article is a response to A. Patkul’s review of my translation of D. Jacquette’s book “Alexius Meinong, the Shepherd of Non-Being.” I disagree with reviewer’s opinion on a number of issues. One of the objections is that A. Patkul proceeds from the implicit (and sometimes explicit) opposition of analytical and continental philosophy when considering the contents of a book written by an analytical philosopher, and moreover translated by an analytical philosopher. This attitude is manifested by him in two trends. Firstly, it is an emphasis on the already well-known sides of the Meinong’s theory of objects, which is rather of historical and philosophical interest, tending more to repeat the “Brentanian” roots and phenomenological aspects of Mining. Actually, the application of Meinong’s ideas to modern philosophical problems, which is the subject of Jacquette’s book, is practically ignored. Secondly, reviewer’s claims to the terminological decisions of the translator turn out, in addition to trivial typos, to be the result of all his desire to keep Meinong in the bosom of often scholastic terminology, with the recommendation to make do with Latin tracing paper. From my point of view, despite the well-known quirkiness of the terminology of Meinong himself, when translating, one should strive to convey the meaning in terms understandable to the reader.

Keywords
Meinong, Russell, object theory, ontology, existence, nothingness, fiction.

References

• Findlay, J. N. (1963). Meinong’s Theory of Objects and Values. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Griffin, N. (1982). Routley R. Exploring Meinong’s Jungles and Beyond. An Investigation on Noneism and the Theory of Items. Russell: The Journal of Bertrand Russell Studies, 2 (2), 53–60.
• Lambert, K. (1983). Meinong and the Principle of Independence: Its Place in Meinong’s Theory of Objects and its Significance in Contemporary Philosophical Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Passmore, J. (1972). A Hundred Years of Philosophy. London: Penguin Books.
• Patkul, A. (2024). Dale Jacquette. Alexius Meinong, The Shepherd Of Non-Being. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology, 13 (1), 280–289. https://doi.org/10.21638/2226-5260-2024-13-1-280-289. (In Russian)
• Routley, R., & Routley, V. (1973). Rehabilitating Meinong’s Theory of Objects. Revue Internationalede Philosophie, 27, 224–254.
• Russell, B. (1956). On Denoting. In Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950 (103–119). New York: G. Putnam’s Sons.
• Ryle, G. (1933). Review of J. N. Findlay, Meinong’s Theory of Object. Oxford Magazine, 52, 118–120.
• Zalta, E. (1988). Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality. Cambridge: MIT Press.
• Kripke, S. (2013). Reference and Existence. The John Locke lectures 1973. Oxford: Oxford University Press.