Clark, list,
I haven't read very much on the problem of reference and generality with
respect to fictional characters, so I'm reluctant to say that it usually
comes down to equivocation over terms. Also I have in mind Peirce's
comment, I don't remember where, that the object determines the sign,
even when the sign in some sense brings the object into being (as with
fictional characters). There seems there something more in the
problematics than a routine equivocation problem. So I'm feeling
cautious on the subject.
Best, Ben
On 2/14/2017 12:42 PM, Clark Goble wrote:
On Feb 14, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Benjamin Udell <[email protected]> wrote:
You wrote, regarding universe of discourse, "Like you I tend to think
most of the debate on all this depends upon equivocation over terms."
Actually I don't have an opinion on that, instead I thought that in
the particular discussion of unicorns, it depended on a sometimes
tempting kind of equivocation. We like ambiguities, puns, and so on.
(Diving is okay, sinking is not so good.)
I was more thinking of the problem of reference & generality with
respect to fictional creatures. Or was that what you didn’t have an
opinion on? As I said I think pragmatic maxim offers the solution
here. Although that too has some oddities in how Peirce applied it.
(Thinking here of his example of the Phoenix)
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
