Derek was in effect arguing that we must retain the word 'real' and 'reality'
because "there are 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.' For example, a major topic of debate in contemporary
aesthetics is the relationship between fiction and reality in novels etc."
For an example of a line in which the word 'reality' cannot be profitably
replaced by other words, Derek supplied:
". . . Does the novel tell us anything of value about reality?"
In response, I said, "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?"
To which Derek wrote:
" Ah no! That's exactly my point. What is 'the non-fiction, everyday
world?''' That's just another term for 'the real world', or 'the world around
us'
, or 'the world' - or 'reality'. We haven't moved anywhere. We only seem to
have."
Which, alas, demonstrates that everything said earlier about the different
and incompatible notions stirred by 'reality' was lost on Derek.
I certainly wasn't looking for an "equivalent" for the word 'reality'.
Exactly what I was trying to do was find a phrase that conveyed the core notion
behind Derek's use of 'reality' in the sentence "Does the novel tell us
anything
of value about reality?" while eliminating the unwanted likelihood that one
could, within that notion, include fantasy, dreams, and feelings.
Derek could now assert, "Oh, no -- I wanted those things included," in which
I case I maintain he vitiated that likelihood by distinguishing fiction from
"reality" in his phrase, "the relationship between fiction and reality in
novels etc."
The value of the replacement sentence I suggest above is that the connotation
of "non-fiction, everyday" reduces almost to zero the possibility that
Derek's sample line could be interpreted like this:
"Does the novel tell us anything of value about fantasy?"
Or ". . . about our make-believe world?"
Or ". . . about our dreams?"
Or even "about our fears, desires, and compulsions?"
Recall it was Derek himself who insisted a notion, a fantasy could be more
"real" than the non-notional iron structure we call the "Eiffel Tower".
His question, " What IS 'the non-fiction, everyday world?''' is the wrong one
here (in more ways than one.) I was arguing for the elimination of the
confused, ambiguous notions stirred by the words 'real' and 'reality. So the
pertinent question is, "What comes to mind when you hear the phrase, 'What is
'the
non-fiction, everyday world?''' What comes to mind does NOT include fantasies
like Santa Clause's factory.
When Derek claims the phrase 'the non-fiction, everyday world' is "just
another term for 'reality'", I sense he does not see the inconsistency with his
previous statements. He earlier claimed that the Santa Claus fantasy has
"reality" for a child. So his own words imply that 'non-fiction' is just
another
word for fantasy. It's this inconsistency in the notions entertained when he
and
others use the words 'real' and 'reality' that I want to eliminate by avoiding
the use of both of them in philosophy discussion.
Deek's inconsistency also arose in his decrying the way others do not
describe their notions behind key words -- while apparently not noticing that
he for
years has steadfastly refused to do precisely that.
Derek does occasionally ask challenging questions, and I value him for that.
And he certainly knows far more than I'll ever know about painting and
sculpture. But I'll stick with my assertion a while back that Derek does not
have the
equipment to do serious philosophy.
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
