As for instance? ...............

Go and read the thread. And figure out where to click to get to latest unread post.

First of all, it does not follow that because having a red nose is a property of the cartoon character, that a real Rudolph could not also have a red nose. Second of all, there is no accurate depiction of what does not exist, so there is no accurate depiction of Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, the hero of story and song.

How could there be an accurate depiction of what does not exist?

I think it's a category error to debate whether cubes (or numbers) exist. Not a mainstream view, I realize.

How could there be an accurate depiction of what does not exist?

There are accurate depictions of the imaginary properties of the imaginary character.

Rudolph has a red nose, four legs, and antlers. What in the world did I just do here? Is what I just stated nonsense, or did I just depict something?

I quite agree. Because we have imaginative powers and language abilities, it is quite easy for us to represent things that don't actually exist. We all do it everyday.

Then why don't we simply change Rudolph's nose to blue? Why depict him as a reindeer?

From what you are saying I can only conclude that the depiction has the property of having a red nose and of being a reindeer but it is depicting nothing.

there is a character of song and story who does.

So, there is a fictional object with that property.

Is what you believe? And what exactly is a fictional object? That seems almost like an oxymoron. If something is fictional, it cannot be an object, can it?

You may recall the claim that numbers are abstract objects, that have no location in space or time. Yet, Fast, and I think Kennethamy, hold that abstract objects exist.

If abstract objects exist, they are real. Things which are fictional, are not real. Therefore abstract objects are not fictional if they are real. Isn't that right?

I dont see any reason to suppose that to be the case, designating some such objects as "fictional" and others as "abstract" is a linguistic convention, as far as I can see.

But things which are fictional do not exist, and things which are abstract objects do exist. Am I wrong? Isn't this how we use the words in language?

It's a category error to debate whether a cube exists? What do you mean by that?

We're talking about defined concepts, it doesn't matter which words are attached to them, they exist or they dont, regardless of whether they're called "fictional" or "abstract". Personally, I see no more reason to suppose that abstract objects exist than I see to suppose that imaginary or fictional objects exist.

Universals, abstract objects, and fictional characters are undeniably spoken of, so that cannot be the subject of the debate over their existence.

To deny their existence is to say that only concrete objects exist.

We call things which do not exist fictional. Such as Rudolph.

Sorry. I don't understand your point. That's right, the sentence, "Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer" describes nothing. But the sentence, "The fictional character of story and song, Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer" does describe something. There is no reindeer named Rudolph who has a red nose, but there is a character of song and story who does.

Of course we dont. To be fictional a thing has to be a work or part of a work, of fiction. There's no cat in this room, that doesn't mean that there's a fictional cat!

A fictional character or cartonn character is a depiction or representation of an imaginary being. How can the depiction of Rudolph flying represent Rudolph if we don't imagine him having the ability to fly?

Speaking of something does not mean that that something spoken of exists. I can speak of Abraham Lincoln right now, and yet he does not exist. He is dead.

But I don't think abstract objects are considered fictional. They are said to exist.