fiction and nonfiction

@Fido,

Fido;124506 wrote:

You must know much to think little, whether you know you know, or know how you know, or not..

Is this just an issue of the semantics of "think" and "know" that we are not agreeing on?

@Deckard,

There's things you know, and things you don't know, and things you know you don't know, and things you don't know you don't know, and things you think you know and things you think you don't know, and things you think you know you know and things you think you know you don't know, and things that only Fido knows. Some of which are semi-fictional.

@Jebediah,

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfel

@Deckard,

Deckard;124507 wrote:

Is this just an issue of the semantics of "think" and "know" that we are not agreeing on?

I doubt it, and one must know to do that as well...

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 08:23 PM ----------

Deckard;124511 wrote:

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don't know." - Donald Rumsfel

So what did Donald really know???

@Fido,

True you have to know some things before you think. Perhaps a priori, perhaps through the senses.
At some point we go out in search of more knowledge. One way to do this is to think of hypotheses and then think of experiments to test these hypotheses. Some experimentation requires special equipment and the careful gathering of data etc. but there are also thought experiments. I often think of fictional works as thought experiments.

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 07:50 PM ----------

Fido;124513 wrote:

So what did Donald really know???

I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

@Deckard,

Deckard;123985 wrote:

I generally prefer nonfiction to fiction but I think its healthy to include some fiction in ones diet. I think at the bottom of it all, my preference for nonfiction is really more aesthetic than practical. Given a choice, I usually read nonfiction that doesn't have any practical application to my life. I just like the way reading nonfiction feels more than I like the feeling of reading a made up story. But I'm not a purist; I like the idea of blurring the line between fiction and nonfiction - making up fake nonfictions and telling true stories as if they were fiction.

Which do you prefer: fiction or nonfiction? A perfect balance of both? Is this a false dichotomy? Are there other categories that should be mentioned here?

We are on two separate pages, my friend. Or perhaps different books.
I love being taken out of this world for a few minutes/hours with a fictional story. Nonfictional tales are somewhat boring from what I've read.

@Deckard,

Deckard;124519 wrote:

True you have to know some things before you think. Perhaps a priori, perhaps through the senses.
At some point we go out in search of more knowledge. One way to do this is to think of hypotheses and then think of experiments to test these hypotheses. Some experimentation requires special equipment and the careful gathering of data etc. but there are also thought experiments. I often think of fictional works as thought experiments.

---------- Post added 02-02-2010 at 07:50 PM ----------

I don't know. I'll have to think about it.

Most knowledge is culture, and when we arrive it is already there

@Fido,

Fido;124394 wrote:

Heminway was good at childish books...All that stuff, war, fishing, drinking, violence, running with the bulls is the stuff of childhood...

I think you are confusing the subject with the treatment. Sure, Hemingway used the stuff of childhood in his stories, but the treatment was quite adult.

Those Nick Adams stories are called "coming of age" stories for a reason.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;124783 wrote:

I think you are confusing the subject with the treatment. Sure, Hemingway used the stuff of childhood in his stories, but the treatment was quite adult.

Those Nick Adams stories are called "coming of age" stories for a reason.

I think you may be out of your mind...It might have been seen as adult in his day, but it was all just hairy chested stupidity...And mind you, I covered some of the same ground as him, was raised in the U.P. and was equally affected by it, by its splendor, and brutality...But that is not living...Brutality is forced upon human beings , and however it is justified now adays, it is unnecessary...What was said of the snow of Kilonmonjero was true of many of his books, that is was a small book by a big man...

Let me here offer a sincere thanks to Heminway...His contribution to liturature was the simple and unadorned declarative sentence...He there by improved my life, and my writing on many levels...

@Fido,

Hemingway, revered as one of the greatest short story alchemists to ever have lived, produced simply "hairy chested stupidity"? That's it? Really?

Recall "The Indian Camp"? And what's the one where Nick's father does not fight the big, jingoistic Indian? I don't ever recall Hemingway justifying violence. You may recall Robert Cohn's childish outburst where he beats up his friends; that certainly wasn't an endorsement of violence.

By the way, "Snows" was a short story.

@Deckard,

He was accepting of violence, Not judging it, and personally participating in it, as with the Indian woman in a hard labor sewn up with fishing line, her husband killing himself, the donkeys with their broken legs on the quay...He did make one statement, and forgive me for it has been many years, about men killling animals having no sympathy even for themselves facing death eventually, and it is my paraphrase...I like his style...He was a man, and as a man who has often been brutal and often faced death, I have an appreciation...It is different when men write because they go about it as workmen, with seldom a wasted move... I have read a lot of Fitzgerald of that age, and there is no comparison...If you have something to say; say it... I picked up a book the other day, and could barely get through the first chapter skiming...The guy thought he was an artist who wanted to paint pretty pictures with words...Eff that...Got a story??? Tell it...That line about Ben Johnson, that before him, plot was intrigue, and intrigue plot is as true today... At least Hemingway had plot...

@Fido,

Of course he had to accept violence as part of life, because violence is part of life.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;124842 wrote:

Of course he had to accept violence as part of life, because violence is part of life.

If I could portray myself through my writing, and who does not, would I wish to appear sensitive, understanding, and tender to the troubles of mankind??? As much as we appreciate the artsy fartsy among us, the liberated gays, and the angels above it all, we more commonly appreciate the man who creates with a will, like Rodin's thinker, and what ever is his tough turd...For a man, the act of creation is not less than labor is for a woman, attended by danger and pain, but that one who treads upon dangerous mental ground, and demeans it, demans it for all... Creation is recreation, and many die in the process, or simply fail...Violence is the stuff of life, but to a degree unnecessary...In the treatment of it we should be careful to not glorify it....As Lawrence said of American literature; It is all about death...We have a death wish here, to kill and be killed, to glory in it, like an ancient Roman...It is because we know unconsciously that we, this place, this nation is the result of so many failed philosophies...Look behind the facade, and you find another facade...

Philosophy Forum

fiction and nonfiction

Quick Links

My Account

able2know