Derek responds to Brady:
"But what is real and what is fictitious? One can I think quite reasonably
argue that, from one point of view, art is more
real, and more 'meaningful', than so-called real life. Real life then
becomes 'a fiction'."
Derek's usage of 'real' though "understandable", vitiates understanding,
Mike. During a recent exchange about "sin" his usage persuaded me that all of
us
should abandon the use of 'real' in these philosophic discussions. I had cited
the layman's use of 'real'. The layman would say the metallic structure in
Paris we call the 'Eiffel Tower' is "real", and Santa's factory at the North
Pole
is "not real".
Derek responded by saying "sin" could be more "real" to some people than the
Eiffel Tower. "There are all kinds of things that are very real to me -
memories, hopes, fears, joys--- If we regard the 'Eiffel Tower' test of reality
as
the most (or only) reliable one, those things that matter to us most - our
hopes, fears, joys, sorrows, and maybe our political beliefs - are the things
that
are the least real."
It's fairly clear that what Derek had in mind is that the NOTION of "sin" is
more constantly with those people, more fearsome, more life-affecting than the
notion of the Tower.
The layman with his kitchen-table English does use the misleading word 'real'
but I'd claim his usage is more approvable than Derek's -- though they both
should abstain from the word in a forum like this. When the layman says the
metallic structure in Paris we call the 'Eiffel Tower' is "real", and Santa's
factory is "not real", I maintain he's observing a distinction "between the
real
and the imaginary" that is worth preserving, though I think all of us should
save that distinction with stuffier, more defensible lingo: "between the
notional and the non-notional". To insist we call them both "real" would
obliterate the layman's valuable distinction between notional and non-notional.
Derek's usage of real in your current discussion would similarly obliterate
the distinction -- as you've correctly identified it -- between fiction and
non-fiction. And his wanting to call them both "real" is based on the same
observation that sometimes "fictions" are more preoccupying, more gripping,
than the
drab non-fiction, non-notional life around us.
As for Derek's recent remark, "I am trying to pretend this discussion of
sport on a philosophy of art list is not happening," I'm afraid that is a sign
of
two weaknesses. He refuses to grapple with notions of "aesthetic experience",
and he lacks the intellectual imagination even to entertain the idea that an
a.e. could arise in someone who is contemplating something he would not call
"art" -- something like a dramatic contest, or a compelling visual scene.
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
