Question: What about scientific treatises - Fiction or non-fiction? Can their statuses change?
Answer: I think scientific treatises are not even on the spectrum of fiction seeing as how a scientific treatise does not have a plot. Though, if work is considered scientific and does have a plot it would be subject to the rules of fiction. If the plot has occurred, then it is science non-fiction, if so, then it is science fiction. I think their status can be assessed in terms of validity. In which case its status can change from valid to invalid depending on research and so on. Over time I can imagine that most scientific treatises are rendered invalid. This does also lead me to wonder what would be the case if a work where revolving around an untrue plot, but some fanatic of a work dedicated his life to make most of those events true.
11 February 2012
Fiction Default Status
Question: Should a work's default state be considered fiction until there is a consensus regarding the empirical truth or such a work?
My definition of fiction is as follows: A work whose central plot or interwoven plots are empirically untrue - events that have never occurred.
One fictional event, given that it does not adversely effect the central plot, then, is excusable and does not necessarily make a work fiction. Telling a completely accurate story of George Washington but including a story where he cuts down a cherry tree and announces that he cannot tell a lie, does not make the entire story fiction.
I do think that a work should be considered fictional unless there is a consensus as to it's empirical truth, this would essentially help to prevent works that some people recognize as non-fiction, such as the bible, from being considered such. Whether or not the author wrote a masterful story of unlikely events doesn't matter. If the plot is untrue regardless of how much the author believes otherwise, a work should be considered fiction until others agree that it's non-fiction.
My definition of fiction is as follows: A work whose central plot or interwoven plots are empirically untrue - events that have never occurred.
One fictional event, given that it does not adversely effect the central plot, then, is excusable and does not necessarily make a work fiction. Telling a completely accurate story of George Washington but including a story where he cuts down a cherry tree and announces that he cannot tell a lie, does not make the entire story fiction.
I do think that a work should be considered fictional unless there is a consensus as to it's empirical truth, this would essentially help to prevent works that some people recognize as non-fiction, such as the bible, from being considered such. Whether or not the author wrote a masterful story of unlikely events doesn't matter. If the plot is untrue regardless of how much the author believes otherwise, a work should be considered fiction until others agree that it's non-fiction.
06 February 2012
Bad Great Literature
Literature is not a qualitative word. It does not carry with it any sort of judgement on the quality of a work. Literature is a category, we can later go to the works within that category and judge them as good or bad. It does not make them not literature, it simple makes them good or bad, they are still literature regardless. Maybe people have the impression that a work of literature must be great (and therefore combine the two where literature is defined as a great work of writing) because non-positive/bad literature seldom makes it to see publication and massive distribution. There can be a bad literary work.
Back to chemistry, under the category of element, a different charge in any given atom does not make it not an element. The fact that an element is a cation or an anion, does not change whether or not they are an element. If chloride has one addition electron, it's still chloride.
Back to chemistry, under the category of element, a different charge in any given atom does not make it not an element. The fact that an element is a cation or an anion, does not change whether or not they are an element. If chloride has one addition electron, it's still chloride.
Dog Lamppost Coherent Solar Prism Three
In response to Nicole, full post here
Should philosophy be remedial rather than preventative? I think it should be the latter. I do not think that philosophers should wait around for proper reasons to change things. I do think that, if possible, a philosopher should go out and try to find problems with things before there is any need to. Right now, we aren't saying that we should change the definition on a whim, we are going to look for sufficient evidence against the definition we currently hold, if we find none, then we won't change the definition.
I have, since my original post, changed my answer regarding the speech. I do think that there are speeches which fit my sufficient causes and should be considered literature. I do think that some speeches (i.e. I have a dream, Gettysburg Address, and so on) have literary qualities and should thereby be considered literature. I think that the distinction I was think about was the frequency with which I could consider either a work of literature, I would say that most plays when written are literature, whereas I would not say the same for speeches.
What, then, is your definition for coherent? Because any person can take a meaning from any collection of words. And once the initial person makes a connection in this conglomeration or words that seem to have no connection, other people, too, will see the same meaning.
Should philosophy be remedial rather than preventative? I think it should be the latter. I do not think that philosophers should wait around for proper reasons to change things. I do think that, if possible, a philosopher should go out and try to find problems with things before there is any need to. Right now, we aren't saying that we should change the definition on a whim, we are going to look for sufficient evidence against the definition we currently hold, if we find none, then we won't change the definition.
I have, since my original post, changed my answer regarding the speech. I do think that there are speeches which fit my sufficient causes and should be considered literature. I do think that some speeches (i.e. I have a dream, Gettysburg Address, and so on) have literary qualities and should thereby be considered literature. I think that the distinction I was think about was the frequency with which I could consider either a work of literature, I would say that most plays when written are literature, whereas I would not say the same for speeches.
What, then, is your definition for coherent? Because any person can take a meaning from any collection of words. And once the initial person makes a connection in this conglomeration or words that seem to have no connection, other people, too, will see the same meaning.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)