[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
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] The Logic of Fiction