Russell (1905) claimed that Meinong’s theory had difficulties as it “regard denoting phrases as standing for constituents of the propositions in whose verbal expression they occur… This theory regards any grammatically correct denoting phrase as standing for an object” (p 482). And the main difficulty of this theory was that it was “apt to infringe the law of contradiction” (p 483). Russell’s critiqued on Meinong’s theory raised three important points: first, on the concept of subsistence. Russell maintained that if we presupposed that ‘It is false that A differs from B’, then ‘the difference between A and B does not subsist’. However, in Meinong’s theory since a denoting phrase was standing for an object, then, the denoting phrase ‘the difference between A and B’ must stand for an object. Therefore, the ‘difference between A and B’ must subsist. In this case, the self-contradiction was made apparent. As it was affirmed that ‘the difference between A and B’ must subsist (Meinong’s theory), so too the preposition ‘the difference between A and B does not subsist’ is affirmed on the statement “It is false that A differs from B”. (Sutler 1967). The second counter-argument rests on the concept of existence. Take the example ‘The King of France is bald.’ Again, using Meinong’s theory, as grammatically correct denoting phrase stand for an object then the statement must be true. But it is a known fact, within the frame of a particular time the preposition ‘the King of France is bald.’ does not stand or signify for any object.