 It is controversial whether Russell’s interpretation was naïve or whether there was indeed a naïve Meinong whom Russell rightly criticized. In fact, many modern logico-semantical “re-constructions” and philosophical interpretations show a Meinongian object theory that is not naïve but tenable and fruitful. Russell’s claim that Meinong’s theory is internally inconsistent can be refuted. There are at least three main accounts that overcome the naïvety (cf. the entries on  nonexistent objects,  Sections 4 &amp; 5, and on  existence,  section 2): (1) The first consists in the elaboration of Mally’s nuclear/extra-nuclear distinction, which Meinong adopted. Routley and (in particular) Parsons (in addition to authors like Jacquette) are in accord with this dual-property approach. (2) Another strategy is the dual-copula approach which has its origin in Mally’s distinction between an object’s being determined [determiniert sein] by a property and an object’s satisfying [erfüllen] a property (Mally 1912; see entry on  Ernst Mally).  On this approach, Mally’s distinction is interpreted as a distinction between two modes of predication of properties, namely, in Zalta’s terms, between “encoding” and “exemplifying” a property. Sympathetic to the dual-copula approach are, for instance, Castañeda, Rapaport, Zalta, Pasniczek, and Reicher. (3) Adopting a paraconsistent logic, that is, a logic in which inconsistencies do not imply everything, is a further attempt to confine the infringement of fundamental logical principles (Routley, Priest). One version of such an approach is Berto and Priest’s Modal Meinongianism, so-named because “characterization is understood with reference to worlds other than the actual”, including impossible worlds. (Berto &amp; Priest 2014: 184).