Fictional Characters and Ontology: Philosophy Forums

Fictional Characters and Ontology
I wrote a paper last semester on this, I plan on revising it with some insight.

Page: 1 2

Fictional Characters and Ontology

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/02/09 - 04:14 PM:	#11
I would interpret someone saying Pegasus is gray as: (x)(Px . (y)(Py->y=x) . Gx) and someone saying Pegasus is white as: (x)(Px. (y)(Py->y=x) . Wx). What we see is that we are talking about the same THINGS, but are differing over the relations of the properties of the things we are talking about. Does that make sense? I'm sort of in a rush right now, so I can't elaborate right now, but this seems to me to be on the right track for analyzing a disagreement over a fictional character's properties.

yasseford
Almost Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 01, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 52

Posted 07/06/09 - 05:16 AM:	#12
But because we are talking about a fictional entity here, there is no definitive way to know that we are talking about the same thing. Even if we list all of the same identity conditions (besides the color), we could be talking about two different horses who occupy the same [fictional] space/time (does this sound coherent? I'm afraid it might not). Thankfully, this sort of thing doesn't cause a break down in communication or logic. It's just an ontological problem I'm posing about language.
Yasseford

Philo1965
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2007

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 92

Posted 07/30/09 - 08:07 PM:	#13
aufbau87 wrote: I would interpret someone saying Pegasus is gray as: (x)(Px . (y)(Py->y=x) . Gx) (x)(Px... Everything pegasizes...?

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 118

Posted 08/04/09 - 04:28 PM:	#14
To answer your question, I suppose maybe 99% of philosophers don't give a damn about the philosophy of language. Many are more concerned with "deeper truths," etc. But many philosopher's of language believe that before you can discuss these deeper truths, you have to address the nuances of language, because it is through language that we communicate these philosophical ideas. 99% - perhaps but not in universities - western universities are obsessed with language philosophy particularly in literature and culture studies. Addressing the nuances of language can often come across as a concieted tautology, a rephrasing. Have you necessarily understood "pegasus" any differently by pursuing those nuances. Perhaps "pegasus" is a poor example. I could see how the nuances of complex abstractions (i.e. Justice, Virtues, Democracy, etc) could improve our understanding and reveal deeper truths. How would language philosophers address this

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.