Re: 'So the pertinent question is, "What comes to mind when you hear the phrase, 'What is 'the non-fiction, everyday world?''
This is exactly my point. What does come to mind? To begin with WHOSE everyday world are we talking about? Some individual's? (In which case it would include his hopes, fears etc, would it not?). A scientist's? (in which case such things would be rigorously excluded - insofar as he is a scientist.) A political scientist? (in which case those things would again be excluded but a lot more would be added - most of which the scientist would not include.) And so on. And which of these 'real worlds' (non-fictional worlds if you like) is relevant to the artist? All? Only one? Which? Why? (I think I am perhaps being more 'philosophical' than you realize :) DA On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 12:17 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
