On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (Kirby) > > .. I'm not exactly sure I follow. If a name is separate from its bearer -- > which it surely is -- the same rule for speaking about "the real" seem to > obtain for speaking about the mythical. You would have to engage in one of > four behaviors in the service of individuating: (a) point ("This is > Aragorn'); (b) title ("Aragorn, son of whatshisname, is the one true King); > (c) brand ("Aragorn is DNA profile such-and-such); or (d) describe ("Aragorn > is yay tall with hair about down to here and a little scuzzy at times. Likes > the outdoors). > If you're already clear that the same rules apply, i.e. adding a fictional dimension doesn't really change the abc's of how one uses proper names, then yes, nothing problematic enters the picture just because the designated person, geographic place, and/or named vessel or spaceship, has no actual existence in the world of past or present facts. I think you might find the occasional amateurish philosophy that takes up this matter of proper names, yet makes no allowances for the referents being mythical. Sometimes what happens with proper names is they're thought to be literal (if I may use that as the opposite of mythical) and then it comes out later that (all this time) the referent had no literal existence. This verdict of "mythical" could be the outcome of sleuthing, detective work i.e. we're trying to track down X, and we think we know who X is, but then we end up concluding either: (a) X never existed or (b) we're simply not sure if X ever existed (and if X did, how much of what we suppose about X is actually fictitious e.g. there's the DNA record, but that turns out to most likely belong to someone else...). The above scenario sounds a lot like police work on one of those popular prime time TV shows wherein all of the characters, plots, equipment, is a made-for-TV fantasy. Within the fictional TV show, the hero-sleuths attempt to track down X (some proper name) and it turns out there's no such person X (the fact that the heroes are also fictive is not a plot element in the show i.e. their fictitious nature is "meta" to the storytelling -- we're suspending disbelief and letting these actors be "real" in a theatrical context). Taking an example from real life, when Oliver Stone made his movie 'JFK', he cast Donald Sutherland as this "Man X" character who seemed to have some inside scoop on that whole business. The movie was of course controversial, as it advanced yet another thesis on that crowded scene already well stocked with conspiracy theories. People attempted to verify this or that aspect of the movie, and that included wondering if there really was a 'Man X' or was that just a screenwriter's device? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onks09EQyLY Well, it turned out in this case that Oliver Stone was actually thinking of a real person whom he'd had conversations with, one Col. Fletcher L. Prouty (http://www.prouty.org/). In the aftermath of the film's release, Oliver and "Man X" actually made some joint appearances on panels (just once? many times? -- I'm recalling some video) to answer questions from journalists and so forth. But one could just as well imagine that "Man X" could have been a screenwriter's invention. Different history in that case, i.e. in many circles, a lot rides on whether something is "true" or not, and that includes much intimate grammar around this concept of "existence" (as in "no, I'm not just making this up"). Philosophical investigations into the meanings of proper names should probably grapple explicitly with fictional cases. It's important to point out that the grammar is similar enough to keep people guessing, in some cases, as to whether the proper name in question associates with someone or something that "exists" or "is real". One might say that "the reality of" or "objective existence of" someone or something is not critical to its having meaning i.e. is in some ways a quite dispensable element, at least insofar as how the grammar is constructed. Of course within this or that language game making use of proper names, it may make all the difference whether "X" is "real" or not. I'd say that's a "parochial concern" in the sense that it's not built in to the grammar. > Names are the behaviors of pointing, describing, branding, or ascribing > title for the purpose of individuating. Because the bearer of the name need > not be real or even be in accord with your description -- see > Wittgenstein's remarks on Excalibur, paragraph 39, in PI -- you needn't > worry about the mythical. Even in the realm of the mythical, the name > game function as it otherwise does. > > You've grappled with the special case of "non-existence" in a thinking manner, have already considered this issue and come out with a clear verdict: the grammar around proper names is not concerned with "existence" in the first instance. There's a subcategory of language games in which the attributes of reality enter in. One may populate a universe with any number of properly named participants, all of whom behave according to the same rules we apply in the "real world" (as we call it). But then once in a fictive world we're able to be more plastic about the rules, more flexible. One might say the structural fabric is far less rigid in fiction, yet still has its break points or coherence failures, when it comes to running up against nonsense. 'Alice in Wonderland' plays along this border twixt sense and nonsense, as does 'Finnegans Wake' I suppose one might say -- as does 'Logico Tractatus Philosophicus' as does 'Philosophical Investigations'... I'm glad we have these Wittgensteinian intersections here, a shared cross-roads of sorts: http://coffeeshopsnet.blogspot.com/2009/10/on-wittgensteins-philo.html "I declare it's marked like a large chess-board!" Alice said at last. "There ought to be some men moving about somewhere — and so there are!" she added in a tone of delight, and her heart began to beat quick with excitement as she went on. "It's a great huge game of chess that's being played-all over the world — if this is the world at all, you know." > It would be like saying: the way you language generally has to be changed > when you enter fiction. Surely, genres and styles exist. But I would think > the language game is pretty much the same thing no matter what. > That's pretty clear and I suppose I agree. I'd say something like: the fictional realm has a low barrier to entry, as you don't have to tweak the grammar really at all to subtract "existence" from the equations. It goes away easily, thanks to our highly evolved ability to sustain fictional realities using the same rules we use for the real world. However, once across that barrier, and into the fictive world, then new possibilities kick in and the grammar may proceed to morph in ways we could not accept or allow if trying to stay faithful to some special-case reality. I appreciate this opportunity to refine our respective views. I assume Kripke is likewise on board with fictional cases being somewhat trivially distinct from the non-fictional. He writes about 'Nixon' quite a bit, as an example of a proper name, but he could just as well write about 'Gandalf' and may well have done so (I'm hardly a walking encyclopedia when it comes to the full range of philosophical investigations already conducted in this realm). Rather than end with a sense of closure though, I want to raise another issue. The meaning of a proper name is very much colored by how it is spun (a truism, just injecting a grammar with 'spin' as an operative term, in accordance with many contemporary use cases). For example John Nash, the Princeton-based mathematician who one a Nobel prize, is also the subject of a popular movie 'A Beautiful Mind' directed by Ron Howard and starring Russell Crowe. I think it's obvious that the meaning of 'John Nash' has been affected, spun, altered, put on a new trajectory, thanks to this fictional work. Then I would say the same is obviously true for 'Richard Nixon' i.e. the meaning of that name is not fixed or "nailed" as one might put it. Overlays, new filters, continuing revelations, keep adding new spin. So in that sense I might contend that the meaning of a proper name remains unsettled and/or "up in the air" or "subject to revision" for an open-ended period of time, another way of saying "remains subject to change in principle, or in perpetuity" (sounds like some sort of legal document). We might be getting into "judgment day" territory (important in Wittgenstein). It's not intrinsic to the meaning of a proper name that it be "settled" or "fixed". Do you rest easy with this formulation? Perhaps what I'm saying here has the flavor of a thesis no one would disagree with? "Trivially the case" might be the verdict on Kirby's proffered observations. Kirby PS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadray_coordinates now has a reference into the technical literature, Urner, Kirby. "Teaching Object-Oriented Programming with Visual FoxPro." *FoxPro Advisor* (Advisor Media, March, 1999), page 48 ff. > Regards and thanks. > > > Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq. > > Assistant Professor > > Wright State University > > Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org > > SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860 > > Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html > > >