Purely Fictional Objects

It looks as if Bill's musings on 'same God' have led him back to What Problem Does Literary Fiction Pose?,
a reworking of an earlier post that we have already discussed.  He offers the following aporia:
  1. Purely fictional objects do not exist.
  2. There are true  sentences about purely fictional objects, e.g., 'Sherlock Holmes is a detective' and 'Sherlock Holmes is purely fictional.'
  3. If a sentence of the form Fa is true, then there exists an x such that 'a' refers to x.
For me, alarm bells were ringing before I reached (3). If we conjoin (1) and (2) we get
There are no PFOs yet there are true sentences about them,
and we should ask what the them refers to. Compare with
There are no leprechauns but there are true sentences about them.
So we can reject (1) and (2) without worrying too deeply about what it means to be a PFO.  I have claimed earlier that 'purely fictional', like 'mythological', 'past', 'intentional', and others, are not adjectives in the ordinary sense.

1 comment:

  1. Speaking of entirely fictional characters, Bill's entire "religious" world view is based on an entirely fictional character (namely "Jesus"), and a mass of entirely fictional events associated with his supposed life. Including AND ESPECIALLY the mythological "resurrection" of the same fictional "Jesus" character.
    Never mind that the "resurrection" never occurred - could not have. And that "Jesus" was never ever in any sense a Christian, nor did he invent or found the religion ABOUT him, namely Christian-ISM, all of which was invented by others long after his death, and mostly very long after. Invented by people none of whom ever met "Jesus" up close and personal in a living-breathing-feeling human form.
    Furthermore, people presume to know so much about "Jesus" and what was "reported" to have happened in his life-time (whenever and wherever that was) And yet, if you really and deeply consider the matter, none of us can even account for our appearance here in this time & place. Because to do so you have to fully take into consideration the totality of everything, or all of space and time beginning with day one or when "creation" began, right up to the present moment, and how "IT" coalesced into creating the present configuration of appearances. Which, again, would have to include everything, including all of the countless space-time paradoxes of quantum Reality, and the irreducible fact that "It" is an Indivisible Unity.

    ReplyDelete