Re: 'Brady has already addressed this serviceably. Here's your question without the word 'reality'. I say it conveys your core point:
"Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, everyday world?"' Ah no! That's exactly my point. What is 'the non-fiction, everyday world?"'' That's just another term for 'the real world', or 'the world around us' , or 'the world' - or 'reality'. We haven't moved anywhere. We only seem to have. DA On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 2:22 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > About the words 'real' and 'reality', I wrote: > > 'Whatever one wants to "say" about plans can be conveyed using other > > less ambiguous and fruitlessly disputable words.' > > > To which Derek responds: > > > Problem is there are lots of key arguments in aesthetics that cannot > easily > > and in fact rarely manage to - avoid using the word 'reality' or > > equivalents like the 'real world.' > > > I don't claim avoiding 'real' and 'reality' in philosophy discussion is > easy, > but I say it can be done and it's worth the effort because it eliminates a > constant source of confusion. > > Derek writes: > > For example a major topic of debate in contemporary aesthetics is the > > relationship between fiction and reality in novels etc. Does the novel > tell > > us anything of value about reality? (Some say yes, some say no.) > > > Brady has already addressed this serviceably. Here's your question without > the word 'reality'. I say it conveys your core point: > > "Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, everyday > world?" > > Derek writes: > > > > Similarly in visual art, if one is going to argue that art is > essentially > > representation, for example, (as many do) then it is reality (the world > etc) > > that is said to be represented. > > > I'm afraid I think that line is shot through with ambiguity, confusion > etc. > But my job at the moment is to see if I can convey your thought without > using > the word 'reality'. I don't think anything is lost from your point -- > and it > is less ambiguous -- if it is expressed like this: > > "then what is said to be represented is the non-fiction, non-notional, > everyday world around us." > > If in fact, you "meant" something different from that, I'm sure you're up > to > the challenge of conveying your notion serviceably without using the word > 'reality'. > > Derek writes: > > > And so on. The notion of reality (or equivalents) occurs again and again > in > > debates in aesthetics - and as a key element in the debate, not as > something > > merely peripheral. > > > Exactly my point is that there is no "THE notion of reality". And I don't > consider keeping as clear as we can the distinctions between fiction and > non-fiction, and notional and non-notional to be peripheral at all. It is > vital if we > are to "understand" each other. > > Derek writes: > > > > The problem - the weakness - is, as I say, that so few writers attempt > to > > stipulate what they mean by it. In fact one usually gets the impression > that > > they don't see any need to stipulate. The meaning of this hugely > ambiguous > word > > is taken to be clear and self-evident... > > > Agreed, Derek. But forgive me if I say no one on the forum is more > stubborn > than you about not stipulating the notion behind your key words. This is > most > acutely so when you use the word 'art'. You occasionally try to use > ostension > to convey your notion -- you point at a work like 'Crime and Punishment' > or > Mozart's 20th and say "That's what I mean by "art" -- but to help you see > why > ostension doesn't work I quote here some lines from the first page of > Chapter > One > in "The Philosophy of Art" by C.J. Ducasse: > > "When art is mentioned, pictures, statues, music, poetry, cathedrals and > so > on naturally come to mind; and the question whether a given picture, for > instance, is truly art -- a question sometimes put to a supposed expert -- > would > indicate in the questioner a naive assumption that "art" is some subtle > attribute, to be discerned in the picture by people whose training has > fitted > them to > do so. But strictly speaking, pictures, statues, and the like are not art > at > all but works of art; and art is not a quality discernible in them. . ." > > > > -- > > Derek Allan > > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > > > > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:18 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Boris writes: > > > > > > > And I think we should not avoid any words in a > > > > serious discussion. > > > > Including 'art', 'aesthetic', 'Beauty' etc. > > > > > > > But Boris, I haven't advocated avoiding THOSE words. I said I suspect > > > disputants will never agree on the notions to be entertained with the > > > words > > > 'real' > > > and 'reality'. I offer the following evidence: Immediately after I > posted > > > my > > > argument that those two words are prompted by -- and will stir -- > too > > > many > > > different and incompatible notions, Williams writes this line: > > > > > > " I think a plan is a make believe script. It is not > > > real until it's acted." > > > > > > Notice: Someone could respond that a plan is a notion. Notions exist. > They > > > are already "real". So a plan is "real". William will respond that he > > > doesn't > > > mean "real" in that sense, and he will maintain his sense of "real" is > the > > > better one --- I say just avoid the word. Whatever one wants to > "say" > > > about > > > plans > > > can be conveyed using other less ambiguous and fruitlessly disputable > > > words. > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan
