[lit-ideas] The Logic of Fiction

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:48:00 EDT

 
 
In a message dated 8/25/2004 2:53:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Thank  you, JL.  When philosophers start talking about 'form' or  'substance'
or 'accidents', etc.  I get squirrelly.  I'm never  sure just what they're
talking about.    Richard Rorty seems  to
make the claim that fiction is the only real philosophy being done  today.  I
wonder if he doesn't mean that philosophizing from fiction  is the only
philosophy being done today.




----
 
Thanks for the comments. My quotes on hylomorphism were meant to show that  
for some reason, Anglo-Saxon authors tend to regard the form/content 
distinction  ('form'/'matter' to be more precise) to be _dogmatic_ -- the fact 
that 
there's a  grand name for the doctrine may help there -- hylomorphism.

 
I don't think 'fiction' is _essential_ for philosophical analysis, but  
others disagree. Gregory Currie has interesting stuff on that, based on Borges, 
 
etc. -- basically an analysis of the difficult idea of a 'logic of fiction'.  
Philosophers in the analytic tradition have been mainly concerned with whether  
the current King of France wears a wig -- or visited an exhibition.
 
But there must be more to it than that.
 
Cheers,
 
JL


------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

[lit-ideas] The Logic of Fiction

Other related posts: