Re: ' Derek was responding to a rather longish posting, much of which is not acknowledged by him. This repeated proclivity when responding to counter-arguments suggests one of three causes:
He doesn't grasp what he's just read. He forgets what he's just read. And I can't help suspecting this third factor may be ruling: he either willfully or in subconscious flight "overlooks" rebuttals he cannot cope with.'" There is another possibility. I don't usually want to write long detailed posts. So I focus on what seem to me to be key points - or points of particular interest.. DA On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 7:16 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I made a mistake. I wanted to make an argument against Derek's insistence > that we had to retain the words 'real' and 'reality' in our philosophic > vocabulary. I said we should avoid those words because they occasion an > extraordinarily > high percent of different, inconsistent, and often incompatible notion in > the > minds of almost everyone who reads them. > > Derek includes as part of "reality" children's fantasies of such things as > Santa Claus and his factory. He'd also include "hopes and fears" -- even > if they > entail fantasies such as the hope the tooth fairy comes tonight, and the > fear > of the boogey-man under the bed, or, in a deluded adult, the hope that Uma > Thurman will love him on sight, and the fear of the assassin he believes > the CIA > has assigned to kill him. > > Derek is aware that those things are solely notional. He does not believe > there is a non-notional Santa Claus. > > But Derek wants to include as part of "reality" all notions as well as all > non-notional objects. Notions, he would argue, are "entities" -- and I > don't > disagree with this. But my point has been that many people -- most people > -- > upon hearing the word 'reality' -- especially when it is contrasted with > "fiction" -- would conjure a notion of "reality" that does NOT include > fantasies and > delusions. > > Because 'real' and 'reality' will always occasion the possibility of > mutually > exclusive notions rising the minds of auditors, I tried to argue that > every > time one was inclined to use the word 'reality' a better locution could be > devised -- where by "better" I meant less likely to cause confusion. That > has > been my sole aim in this thread -- to find lingo less likely to promote > misunderstanding; we will never eliminate entirely "misinterpretation", > but we can > reduce its likelihood to a degree. > > As an example, I took Derek's line, > > ". . . Does the novel tell us anything of value about reality?" > and I rewrote it with what I called a profitable replacement for the word > 'reality' while preserving his core notion: > > "Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, everyday > world?" > > For a moment, I had pondered phrasing it this way: > "Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, > non-notional, everyday world?" > > But lister protests have cowed me into refraining from excessive > linguistic > niceties, so I, mistakenly, figured the additional qualifier, > 'non-notional', > was harmfully "gilding the linguistic lily". > > Now I see my gilding would not have been excessive; but it would have been > a > flat mistake in terms of preserving Derek's "core notion". Derek's latest > on > this thread conveys he DID mean to include fantasies and delusions -- and > indeed all notions: > > "This is exactly my point. What does come to mind? To begin with WHOSE > everyday world are we talking about? Some individual's? In which case it > would > include his hopes, fears etc, would it not?" > > (I take it as mildly revealing of Derek's mind that he drops my qualifier, > 'non-fiction'. If he'd focused on it, it might have given him pause if he > considered that hopes often take the form of personal fiction.) > > Still, in truth I would have been clearer if I'd included the additional > qualifier, 'non-notional' -- but I failed to do so. > > And, say I, the very fact of my misinterpretation of what Derek had in > mind > with 'reality' supports my argument that the word occasions too much > misinterpretation. If, instead of his original line, Derek had asked -- > > "Does the novel tell us anything of value about the everyday world -- > which > comprises non-notional entities, as well as notional entities including > fantasies and delusions?" > > -- I guarantee what came to my mind would have been closer to what he had > in > mind as he framed his question. Of course, I also want to think that, > finding > himself putting it like that, might have made him see two things: The use > of > 'reality' would not convey what he had in mind at that moment -- and maybe > what > he had in mind needed rethinking. > > After all, I'd already spent a couple of thousand words describing > different > and often incompatible notions occasioned by that word. For example, I > cited > the layman who's aware that children's fantasies of Santa's factory exist > but > who would always insist the iron structure in Paris we call the "Eiffel > Tower" > "is real" in a way that factory never will "be". I explained why I > believed > the confusion could be avoided by using the likes of 'notional' or > 'non-notional', or 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' instead of 'real'. There is > nothing one might > want to say with 'real and 'reality' that cannot be conveyed with such > admittedly stuffier but less-ambiguous locutions. > > One of Derek's regularly-displayed weaknesses is that he apparently reads > postings solely to find what he disagrees with. I don't recall ever > finding him > saying someone has made a worthy point that he never thought of. A > corollary > weakness in him is that he regularly ignores those elements in a > counter-arguing > posting that he evidently cannot rebut. > > Derek was responding to a rather longish posting, much of which is not > acknowledged by him. This repeated proclivity when responding to > counter-arguments > suggests one of three causes: > > He doesn't grasp what he's just read. > > He forgets what he's just read. > > And I can't help suspecting this third factor may be ruling: he either > willfully or in subconscious flight "overlooks" rebuttals he cannot cope > with. > > For whatever reason, it's fairly clear Derek will not accept that giving > up > the words 'real' and 'reality' in philosophic argument would be a good > thing. > > In my years on this forum I've been pulled and nudged through many > unconsidered and ill-considered positions of mine. I'm grateful for it. It > calls to mind > the saying of Epicurus: > > "In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he > learns > most." >
