I made a mistake. I wanted to make an argument against Derek's insistence
that we had to retain the words 'real' and 'reality' in our philosophic
vocabulary. I said we should avoid those words because they occasion an
extraordinarily
high percent of different, inconsistent, and often incompatible notion in the
minds of almost everyone who reads them.
Derek includes as part of "reality" children's fantasies of such things as
Santa Claus and his factory. He'd also include "hopes and fears" -- even if
they
entail fantasies such as the hope the tooth fairy comes tonight, and the fear
of the boogey-man under the bed, or, in a deluded adult, the hope that Uma
Thurman will love him on sight, and the fear of the assassin he believes the
CIA
has assigned to kill him.
Derek is aware that those things are solely notional. He does not believe
there is a non-notional Santa Claus.
But Derek wants to include as part of "reality" all notions as well as all
non-notional objects. Notions, he would argue, are "entities" -- and I don't
disagree with this. But my point has been that many people -- most people --
upon hearing the word 'reality' -- especially when it is contrasted with
"fiction" -- would conjure a notion of "reality" that does NOT include
fantasies and
delusions.
Because 'real' and 'reality' will always occasion the possibility of mutually
exclusive notions rising the minds of auditors, I tried to argue that every
time one was inclined to use the word 'reality' a better locution could be
devised -- where by "better" I meant less likely to cause confusion. That has
been my sole aim in this thread -- to find lingo less likely to promote
misunderstanding; we will never eliminate entirely "misinterpretation", but we
can
reduce its likelihood to a degree.
As an example, I took Derek's line,
> ". . . Does the novel tell us anything of value about reality?"
and I rewrote it with what I called a profitable replacement for the word
'reality' while preserving his core notion:
"Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction, everyday
world?"
For a moment, I had pondered phrasing it this way:
"Does the novel tell us anything of value about the non-fiction,
non-notional, everyday world?"
But lister protests have cowed me into refraining from excessive linguistic
niceties, so I, mistakenly, figured the additional qualifier, 'non-notional',
was harmfully "gilding the linguistic lily".
Now I see my gilding would not have been excessive; but it would have been a
flat mistake in terms of preserving Derek's "core notion". Derek's latest on
this thread conveys he DID mean to include fantasies and delusions -- and
indeed all notions:
"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?"
(I take it as mildly revealing of Derek's mind that he drops my qualifier,
'non-fiction'. If he'd focused on it, it might have given him pause if he
considered that hopes often take the form of personal fiction.)
Still, in truth I would have been clearer if I'd included the additional
qualifier, 'non-notional' -- but I failed to do so.
And, say I, the very fact of my misinterpretation of what Derek had in mind
with 'reality' supports my argument that the word occasions too much
misinterpretation. If, instead of his original line, Derek had asked --
"Does the novel tell us anything of value about the everyday world -- which
comprises non-notional entities, as well as notional entities including
fantasies and delusions?"
-- I guarantee what came to my mind would have been closer to what he had in
mind as he framed his question. Of course, I also want to think that, finding
himself putting it like that, might have made him see two things: The use of
'reality' would not convey what he had in mind at that moment -- and maybe what
he had in mind needed rethinking.
After all, I'd already spent a couple of thousand words describing different
and often incompatible notions occasioned by that word. For example, I cited
the layman who's aware that children's fantasies of Santa's factory exist but
who would always insist the iron structure in Paris we call the "Eiffel Tower"
"is real" in a way that factory never will "be". I explained why I believed
the confusion could be avoided by using the likes of 'notional' or
'non-notional', or 'fiction' or 'non-fiction' instead of 'real'. There is
nothing one might
want to say with 'real and 'reality' that cannot be conveyed with such
admittedly stuffier but less-ambiguous locutions.
One of Derek's regularly-displayed weaknesses is that he apparently reads
postings solely to find what he disagrees with. I don't recall ever finding him
saying someone has made a worthy point that he never thought of. A corollary
weakness in him is that he regularly ignores those elements in a
counter-arguing
posting that he evidently cannot rebut.
Derek was responding to a rather longish posting, much of which is not
acknowledged by him. This repeated proclivity when responding to
counter-arguments
suggests one of three causes:
He doesn't grasp what he's just read.
He forgets what he's just read.
And I can't help suspecting this third factor may be ruling: he either
willfully or in subconscious flight "overlooks" rebuttals he cannot cope with.
For whatever reason, it's fairly clear Derek will not accept that giving up
the words 'real' and 'reality' in philosophic argument would be a good thing.
In my years on this forum I've been pulled and nudged through many
unconsidered and ill-considered positions of mine. I'm grateful for it. It
calls to mind
the saying of Epicurus:
"In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he learns
most."
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
