tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post110854878189387521..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: Complete Fiction, inside and outRichard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108702199121718052005-02-17T23:49:00.000-05:002005-02-17T23:49:00.000-05:00I have been enjoying an email correspondence with ...I have been enjoying an email correspondence with Richard on this topic, and have enjoyed it enough that I have posted some of (what I found to be) the most interesting discussion on my blog... The post page is available at http://melbournephilosopher.blogspot.com/2005/02/fictional-truth.html in case anyone is interested, or if not at least Google will now add +1 to Richard's PageRank for this topic...<br /><br />-MPAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11384742711203790401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108691344637742642005-02-17T20:49:00.000-05:002005-02-17T20:49:00.000-05:00Like mostly everyone else, I haven't actually read...Like mostly everyone else, I haven't actually read any of the official literature on this topic. But I've benefitted from reading others' blog posts - especially at Fake Barn Country (I highly recommend interested readers browse through their archives on the categories of 'fiction', 'imagination', and some of the 'metaphysics' posts too).<br /><br />For example, Allan discusses impossible fictions <A HREF="http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Philosophy/Blog/Archives/003618.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108691009476134412005-02-17T20:43:00.000-05:002005-02-17T20:43:00.000-05:00Chris, I'm still not sure that even the internal p...Chris, I'm still not sure that even the internal perspective is 'complete'. As I understand it, the internal perspective explains why a fictional fact is so from within the fiction. The external perspective explains why the story contains this fact to begin with. They're the same facts, so how can one perspective be complete and the other not?<br /><br />Now, I agree that the fiction encompasses individual worlds which, if taken on their own, would be complete (and could be described as such from their own 'internal perspective'). So there is <I>a</I> possible world where the wizards know that (e) is true, and we can explain this fact by reference to other facts within that world (e.g. that (e) really is true in that world, and the wizards have magical abilities which let me know this). But those facts aren't part of the broader fiction, so how can they be part of the broader fiction's internal perspective?<br /><br />I would argue that the internal perspective of a fiction can only appeal to facts that are <I>common to all the individual worlds covered by the fiction</I>. So we cannot appeal to (e), because (e) is false in <I>some</I> worlds described by the Harry Potter fictions. So (e) is not an internal fact of the fictions. Fictions are not complete, even from an internal perspective. Only individual possible worlds are; but fictions cover more than just one individual possible world.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108663720933769522005-02-17T13:08:00.000-05:002005-02-17T13:08:00.000-05:00Jonathan, when you insinuate fiction follows a dif...Jonathan, when you insinuate fiction follows a different logic, what do you mean? Do you literally mean a different logic like fuzzy logic or intuitionalist logic? <br /><br />I'm afraid that my inclination is that we ought treat the author's words much like the words of a historian <I>trying</I> to assert something about a fictional world. Further that the fictional world can't be captured by the intents of the author. That's true for numerous reasons. One being multi-authored works. (And of course we can raise the spectre of whether an author writing at different times is the same author)<br /><br />My inclination is to suggest that speaking about what is a defensible reading of a text versus an indefinsible reading is a more useful way of considering the problem. However I confress that comes more out of my semiotics background and the philosophy of the open vs. closed text. It seems to me that to even ask the question in the way some do presupposes the possibilty of a closed text.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108658634273472972005-02-17T11:43:00.000-05:002005-02-17T11:43:00.000-05:00Glad you found my comment over at EG helpful. I s...Glad you found my comment over at EG helpful. I still think it's strange to say that fictions pick out unique worlds. David is right to say that they would do this from his internal perspective, and that thereby all propositions would be true or false for every fiction. But, I think the internal perspective is the wrong way to go. A way to bring this out more might be by discussing those fictions that we all know so well: dreams. Last night I had a dream that involved some women I had never met before having a nervous breakdown while I tried to save her sanity. Is it true or false that in that dream-world the nail of my left pinky-toe needed a trim? Boy, I couldn't even begin to answer that question, and I'm the only one who has any sort of direct epistemic access to the dream.<br /><br />Another interesting question: How <I>should</I> we deal with fictions containing contradictions? Imagine a story that said, "And then Fred saw an object that was both a circle and a square at the same time." Uunfotunately that proposition is not true in any world, so how could we analyze it? I wonder if anyone has dealt with this question in the literature before....Like Clark, I haven't read much at all on this subject.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09376086559299430967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108626799208677412005-02-17T02:53:00.000-05:002005-02-17T02:53:00.000-05:00*shrug* I don't really know much about surrealism,...*shrug* I don't really know much about surrealism, and the "basics" of truth-in-fiction seem tricky enough even without introducing such complications. Though I recall 'impossible fictions' in general being discussed in an old FBC post as motivating an expansion of our ontology to include 'impossible worlds'. I could dig up the link if you're interested. Though I'm not sure whether that would help explain plane-hopping characters at all...<br /><br />David, I'm glad you took my comments in the light they were intended. There's another issue about the internal/external distinction I want to raise. I thought it was about different ways of explaining fictional facts. We might explain them from within the world(s), or else we might explain why the fiction is about worlds containing those facts. Either way, the facts are unchanged. All that changes is our explanatory perspective.<br /><br />However, you seem to be arguing that these perspectives give rise to different facts or truths. You seem to accept that the external perspective is incomplete, but argue that all truth values will be determinate from an 'internal' perspective. So do you want to say the distinction goes deeper than originally proposed? Or is it, perhaps, a different distinction entirely?<br /><br />I look forward to your next post on the topic...Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108607058306216732005-02-16T21:24:00.000-05:002005-02-16T21:24:00.000-05:00Richard,
First of all, just to respond to your in...Richard,<br /><br />First of all, just to respond to your intuition poll: My intuition is the opposite of yours. But you already knew that!<br /><br />Secondly: Thanks for making these criticisms available. Responding to criticism is the best way to improve one's view, so I certainly don't think your post is "overly critical". On the contrary, I very much appreciate your sincere and thoughtful response.<br /><br />I think some of your criticisms here succeed. I'm still not ready to give up my view, but I think my view might need to be slightly tweaked in light of some of the points you make here.<br /><br />I agree that the "external" perspective was, in my post, overly involved in the author's intentions/thoughts/etc. I think something like your version of the external perspective would be better than the one I offered.<br /><br />I think two central claims of my original post still stand:<br /><br />1. From the internal perspective, all propositions are either true or false; and<br />2. The external perspective exhibits a "logical strangeness" which is not typical of our ordinary thinking about fictional worlds. (And therefore, we do not ordinarily think about fiction from the external perspective.)<br /><br />I won't respond to your criticisms of either these claims now, since I'm not quite sure how to do so yet, but I plan to do so in a future blog post. For now, I only want to acknowledge that your criticisms of these claims (especially of claim 1) seem persuasive, and deserve a thorough response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108591552441157422005-02-16T17:05:00.000-05:002005-02-16T17:05:00.000-05:00In his last sentence, Clark seems to solve his own...In his last sentence, Clark seems to solve his own problem.<br /><br />(Also, yes, I also have enwe's problem with your blog, Richard.)Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260245860017778409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108581530869989662005-02-16T14:18:00.000-05:002005-02-16T14:18:00.000-05:00I'll be the first to admit that I've not studied t...I'll be the first to admit that I've not studied the philosophy of fiction much at all. <br /><br />However it seems a bigger problem than vagueness that there are many inherent contradictions in fiction. Many authors contradict themselves. Exactly how to resolve that isn't at all clear to me. Fiction, unlike reality, seems to follow a different logic.Clark Goblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03876620613578404474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-1108556834038439752005-02-16T07:27:00.000-05:002005-02-16T07:27:00.000-05:00Hi Richard,
I have some problems with your weblog...Hi Richard,<br /><br />I have some problems with your weblog. It always takes very long to get from one post to the comments - or BTW to get to your weblog. Ten minutes ago I wanted to get from this post to the comment section and I had to wait three minutes.<br />I don't think that my internet access causes this waiting time. (my computer is directly connected with the server.)Has anyone other the same problems?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com