[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 
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.

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