 (1) is a stronger claim than the other four. (2) and (3) are stronger than (5) and (4), respectively. (1)-(3) give characterizations of all objects, whereas (4) and (5) are more limited in scope. When the verb ‘exists’ is understood with the most comprehensive domain of discourse (assuming the availability of such a domain), (5) is known as actualism. If the domain of discourse for ‘exists’ is stipulated to consist only of actual objects, (5) is trivial and compatible with possibilism, the position which says that some object is outside the domain consisting of all actual objects; cf. (ii). Most of those who advertise their positions as actualist hold not only (5) with the most comprehensive domain of discourse in mind but also (1), and therefore (2)-(4) as well. There are some theorists who hold (5), or at least do not deny (5), but deny (1). They do so by denying (3), that is, by maintaining that some object is a non-existing object. Such a view is one version of Meinongianism. But let us start with actualism and possibilism.