a reworking of an earlier post that we have already discussed. He offers the following aporia:
- Purely fictional objects do not exist.
- There are true sentences about purely fictional objects, e.g., 'Sherlock Holmes is a detective' and 'Sherlock Holmes is purely fictional.'
- If a sentence of the form Fa is true, then there exists an x such that 'a' refers to x.
There are no PFOs yet there are true sentences about them,and we should ask what the them refers to. Compare with
There are no leprechauns but there are true sentences about them.So we can reject (1) and (2) without worrying too deeply about what it means to be a PFO. I have claimed earlier that 'purely fictional', like 'mythological', 'past', 'intentional', and others, are not adjectives in the ordinary sense.