It's dismaying to need to ask that Cheerskep refer to my whole satements instead of just the phrase or so that suits his rebuttal. And it's also dismaying that he refuses to sense the nuance I give to fiction.
Regarding fiction, I did make distinctions between those that lack real life evidence and those that don't. I can still maintain that our ways of experiencing and relating experience are fictional because they are constructed of various parts of consciousness (and unconscious feeling) regardless of the utility of separating some of these experiences as fully imaginative and not verifiable in the usual ways we say are real. I think a lie is a deliberate falsehood. It is a deliberate omission or distortion of evidence. When we lie we are deliberately withholding some evidence about some experiences and thus cause misconstrual of the experience. But since we cannot recall or convey the totality of any experience, we actively or passively select salient features or episodes and thus fictionalize the event in reconstructing it. We recreate it in symbolic and piecemeal form, whether in our own consciousness or in relating to others. It is never the same as the original stream of experience and to the extent that it differs, it is a fictional recreation. The fact that there are numerous factual histories of the American Revolution, for instance, each of them dealing with some verifiable evidence and making different inferences from it --all with the goal of accuracy-- indicates that each one is fictional to some degree even as it is also factually historical. Scholars debate the relative importance of different inferences (fictional) in such histories: Was the Revolution really a direct extension of the French and Indian War or not? Just because something is fictional in the way I describe, it is not necessarily lying. Some may claim that England's insistence that the American Colonies pay for their aid during the French and Indian War, and the American refusal to do so, was a crucial event leading to the Revolution. But who really know? Ten thousand seemingly minor events, even an insult or two, might have been the catalyst. So is it false history to not dig out and reconstruct every single detail and event -- an impossibility? No. But the absence of the whole truth (all the evidence) is to rely on fictional filling of the gaps. I think you're so eager to demean my contributions here that you're quick to turn a blind eye to what I actually say. WC --- On Wed, 12/31/08, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Malcolm Gladwell and beliefs > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, December 31, 2008, 11:25 AM > William asks: > > "As a philosopher, why do you tend to reduce all > questions to an either/or > opposition? What happened to nuance? Are all > philosophical questions > either round holes or square holes? Don't > philosophers try to square the circle > at all, ever? And if so, don't they show how false > oppositions morph into > greater complexities?" > > Philosophers, like scientists (including neurologists), > historians, > musicologists, and any reasonable thinker, try to discern > distinctions if they are > there. Most of us see/feel a "real" distinction > between totally imaginary stories > and factual statements. I was suggesting that if you > maintain all stories are > "fiction", you would be obliterating a very > useful distinction. It would imply > that there's no distinction between lying and telling > the truth -- it's all > fiction anyway. > > It's dismaying that I have to talk you into believing > that seeing real > distinctions is useful, that not all of it is destructive > philosophical > pettifoggery. For example, I asked if in your view a fairy > tale and the report that Paul > Newman is dead are "equally fiction". You > replied: > > "Not equally. No two events are ever equal." > > But I didn't ask if the events are equal. I asked if > they are, in your view > "equally fiction". > > Take two crime novels -- one about a robbery, one about a > murder. You could > claim both crimes are equally fictional without claiming > the two crimes are > equal, or that the two novels are equal. > > One could claim two noises are equally loud without > implying the two noises > are otherwise the same. > > If you can't see the distinction I claim is there, > we're in trouble. > > More to the point, you don't appear to see a > distinction between an > acceptable factual story and one that's entirely made > up. In recent years, several > news reporters have been disgraced and fired for filing > stories as factual but > that were finally determined to be fiction. You don't > recognize the > distinction. The recent alleged holocaust memoir, > "Angel at the Fence" by Herman > Rosenblat, has been withdrawn by the publisher because some > of the statements in it > were found to be to be "fiction". You evidently > don't accept any distinction > between "fiction" and "truth". > > People like me -- and we don't have to be philosophers > to take this view -- > claim that it is indeed a question of either/or: EITHER > Rosenblat did meet the > girl at the concentration camp fence OR he did not. EITHER > Rosenblat's > description of those fence encounters is fiction OR it is > non-fiction. > > Your position is "All stories are based on memory. > All memories are > fiction." 'All X are Y, and all Y are Z' > entails that all X are Z. Ergo all stories > are fiction. > > I can't believe you don't see a distinction between > a lie and truth, so I > asked what word you use to express that distinction, given > you extremely unusual > usage of the word 'fiction'. > > > > ************** > New year...new news. Be the first to know what is making > headlines. (http://www.aol.com/?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000026)
