About the words 'real' and 'reality', I wrote: > 'Whatever one wants to "say" about plans can be conveyed using other > less ambiguous and fruitlessly disputable words.' > To which Derek responds:
> Problem is there are lots of key arguments in aesthetics that cannot easily > and in fact rarely manage to - avoid using the word 'reality' or > equivalents like the 'real world.' > I don't claim avoiding 'real' and 'reality' in philosophy discussion is easy, but I say it can be done and it's worth the effort because it eliminates a constant source of confusion. Derek writes: > For example a major topic of debate in contemporary aesthetics is the > relationship between fiction and reality in novels etc. Does the novel tell > us anything of value about reality? (Some say yes, some say no.) > Brady has already addressed this serviceably. Here's your question without the word 'reality'. I say it conveys your core point: "Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, everyday world?" Derek writes: > > Similarly in visual art, if one is going to argue that art is essentially > representation, for example, (as many do) then it is reality (the world etc) > that is said to be represented. > I'm afraid I think that line is shot through with ambiguity, confusion etc. But my job at the moment is to see if I can convey your thought without using the word 'reality'. I don't think anything is lost from your point -- and it is less ambiguous -- if it is expressed like this: "then what is said to be represented is the non-fiction, non-notional, everyday world around us." If in fact, you "meant" something different from that, I'm sure you're up to the challenge of conveying your notion serviceably without using the word 'reality'. Derek writes: > And so on. The notion of reality (or equivalents) occurs again and again in > debates in aesthetics - and as a key element in the debate, not as something > merely peripheral. > Exactly my point is that there is no "THE notion of reality". And I don't consider keeping as clear as we can the distinctions between fiction and non-fiction, and notional and non-notional to be peripheral at all. It is vital if we are to "understand" each other. Derek writes: > > The problem - the weakness - is, as I say, that so few writers attempt to > stipulate what they mean by it. In fact one usually gets the impression that > they don't see any need to stipulate. The meaning of this hugely ambiguous word > is taken to be clear and self-evident... > Agreed, Derek. But forgive me if I say no one on the forum is more stubborn than you about not stipulating the notion behind your key words. This is most acutely so when you use the word 'art'. You occasionally try to use ostension to convey your notion -- you point at a work like 'Crime and Punishment' or Mozart's 20th and say "That's what I mean by "art" -- but to help you see why ostension doesn't work I quote here some lines from the first page of Chapter One in "The Philosophy of Art" by C.J. Ducasse: "When art is mentioned, pictures, statues, music, poetry, cathedrals and so on naturally come to mind; and the question whether a given picture, for instance, is truly art -- a question sometimes put to a supposed expert -- would indicate in the questioner a naive assumption that "art" is some subtle attribute, to be discerned in the picture by people whose training has fitted them to do so. But strictly speaking, pictures, statues, and the like are not art at all but works of art; and art is not a quality discernible in them. . ." > > -- > Derek Allan > http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm > > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 12:18 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Boris writes: > > > > > And I think we should not avoid any words in a > > > serious discussion. > > > Including 'art', 'aesthetic', 'Beauty' etc. > > > > > But Boris, I haven't advocated avoiding THOSE words. I said I suspect > > disputants will never agree on the notions to be entertained with the > > words > > 'real' > > and 'reality'. I offer the following evidence: Immediately after I posted > > my > > argument that those two words are prompted by -- and will stir -- too > > many > > different and incompatible notions, Williams writes this line: > > > > " I think a plan is a make believe script. It is not > > real until it's acted." > > > > Notice: Someone could respond that a plan is a notion. Notions exist. They > > are already "real". So a plan is "real". William will respond that he > > doesn't > > mean "real" in that sense, and he will maintain his sense of "real" is the > > better one --- I say just avoid the word. Whatever one wants to "say" > > about > > plans > > can be conveyed using other less ambiguous and fruitlessly disputable > > words. > ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
