numbers vs. words

@cws910,

Fictional characters have fictional properties, both of which exist. To say of a property that it's fictional isn't to say there are no properties; instead, to say of a property that it's fictional is to say there are no corresponding non-fictional properties attributable to the fictional character.

@fast,

fast;138709 wrote:

Fictional characters have fictional properties, both of which exist. To say of a property that it's fictional isn't to say there are no properties; instead, to say of a property that it's fictional is to say there are no corresponding non-fictional properties attributable to the fictional character.

In other words, the fictional character Scooby Doo is an abstract object?

@fast,

fast;138709 wrote:

Fictional characters have fictional properties, both of which exist. To say of a property that it's fictional isn't to say there are no properties; instead, to say of a property that it's fictional is to say there are no corresponding non-fictional properties attributable to the fictional character.

I'm sorry Fast, but you still haven't answered my question.

Just provide a list of some of the properties that the fictional character Scooby Doo has.

You've already claimed he doesn't have the property of being able to speak. But he is clearly depicted as being able to do so.

Maybe it would be helpful to reach clarification on this if you tell us what you think "depiction" means. As I pointed out earlier it essentially mean the same thing as "representation". But you objected to my use of that term.

---------- Post added 03-11-2010 at 02:33 PM ----------

Zetherin;138713 wrote:

In other words, the fictional character Scooby Doo is an abstract object?

I would say that the fictional character Scooby Doo is an imaginary creature. It is the product of someone's imagination. And becasue we are language users we can represent what we imagine with words just as we can represent what we see or hear with words. And we also have the capacity to represent things with pictures and drawings. So we can not only tell stories about Scooby Doo. We can also make cartoons about him.

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;138724]Just provide a list of some of the properties that the fictional character Scooby Doo has. [/QUOTE]Fictional collar; fictional speech; fictional owner (Shaggy); real creator (cartoonist);

[QUOTE]You've already claimed he doesn't have the property of being able to speak. But he is clearly depicted as being able to do so. [/QUOTE]
A dog can bark, but a cartoon dog cannot. A cartoon dog can be depicted as if (as if, I say) it's barking, but a cartoon dog can no more bark than can a sketch or drawing of a dog bark. Even if a real dog could speak, no cartoon dog could ever speak, not really speak, I mean.

@fast,

fast;138735 wrote:

Fictional collar; fictional speech; fictional owner (Shaggy); real creator (cartoonist);

Thanks.
So what is the difference between a fictional collar and an imaginary one?

@fast,

fast;138735 wrote:

A dog can bark, but a cartoon dog cannot.

The cartoon is a representation of Scooby-Doo, it is not Scooby-Doo. You and Kennethamy are being inconsistent on this point too, if, in order to exist, there must be a physically real Rudolph or Scooby-Doo, then there must be a physically real three, but you both claim that three exists without location in time or space. If lack of a physical reindeer corresponding to the depictions of Rudolph entails that Rudolph doesn't exist, then the similar lack also entails that three doesn't exist.

@cws910,

I think I have had enough of this thread.

@fast,

fast;138665 wrote:

The Scooby Doo character exists, but it's a fictional character because Scooby Doo does not exist.

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

So the character Scooby Doo is a representation of Scooby Doo. And Scooby Doo is an imaginary person*. Then the fictional character Scooby Doo is a representation of what we imagine Scooby Doo to be.
We can say the fictional character exists because it is a representation of a person and we should not confuse the representation with what it is a representation of.

* I think we can call Scooby Doo either an imaginary dog or imaginary person since he acts just like a person even though he has the appearance of a dog. In other words, I see no good need to restrict the use of "person" only to human beings.

@Ahab,

[QUOTE=Ahab;138936]So the character Scooby Doo is a representation of Scooby Doo. [/QUOTE]I really don't like your use of the word, "representation," but if you insist on using it, I might concede that it's a representation of what Scooby Doo would be if there was a Scooby Doo, but as it stands, Scooby Doo (the actual dog) does not exist, and the only thing that I can think of that can be representative of nothing would be things like drawings of circles with nothing in it. A pluff of the Scooby Doo character might can be said to represent the Scooby Doo character, but I don't see how a pluff of the Scooby Doo character can represent Scooby Doo (the dog).

The real underlying issue is the failure to understand why it's false to say that Scooby Doo is a cartoon character when much of the world would say it's true. To see this, let's make a cartoon character based on you, and let's call it Ahab. All of a sudden Ahab is a cartoon character? I don't think so. There is Ahab (which in this case does exist), and there is the cartoon character Ahab [not to be confused with the cartoon character, Ahab (notice the comma) --which implies that Ahab is a cartoon character].

Some people will have no clue that the cartoon character is based on you, and like most people, they'll start talking in shorthand and start referring to the cartoon character Ahab as Ahab and say things like Ahab is a cartoon character. I know what they mean. They are simply talking in shorthand and using the term, "Ahab" to refer to what they are talking about (which is the cartoon character Ahab). But, both you and I know that Ahab is not a cartoon character.

Now, let's say that Ahab was actually a product of the imagination. Ahab (in this instance) would be imaginary, but it would not therefore be a cartoon character. Next, let's say a cartoon character is created (based in part from what is imagined) and made apart of an elaborate cartoon that features the cartoon character Ahab (not to be confused, of course, with Ahab). All of a sudden, because of the creation of the story line which includes the character and its fictional traits, the fictional character Ahab now exists, which is not of course to say that Ahab exists. Remember, Ahab is not real, as there is no walking talking Ahab.

So, basically, you don't exist. Very Happy

So, I'm with Fido and also think I've had enough of this thread.

@fast,

fast;138945 wrote:

The real underlying issue is the failure to understand why it's false to say that Scooby Doo is a cartoon character when much of the world would say it's true.

Who said Scooby Doo isn't a cartoon character? Maybe the real issue is what it is to exist. The guys insisting that Rudolph and Scooby Doo exist know quite well that "Rudolph does not exist", spoken in the appropriate context, is true. They think, however, that if you are to insist (in a philosophical discussion) that the number three exists, then merely mouthing "to exist is to have properties" is not an adequate demonstration that Rudolph does not exist.
[QUOTE]So, I'm with Fido and also think I've had enough of this thread.[/QUOTE]You might want to consider whether your arguments against the existence of Rudolph apply to the number three.

@cws910,

1. Scooby Doo
2. The concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo
3. The fictional character Scooby Doo
4. Every drawing, painting, movie, t.v. show, or otherwise representation of the fictional character Scooby Doo.

Again, (1) does not exist. (2) and (4) seem to certainly exist. But I can't reconcile what it means to say (3) exists.

When I say "The fictional character Scooby Doo exists", am I not just saying that I know of the fictional character that has been represented by (4)? How would we seperate (3) from (4)? To seperate (3) from (4) would mean that we are now giving the fictional character Scooby Doo independent existence from all representations of the fictional character Scooby Doo! But how can we do that, when the fictional character Scooby Doo is defined by its representations, it is the representations, is it not?

That is why it doesn't make any sense to me to say (3) exists. The fictional character Scooby Doo does not exist. The representations (paintings, movies, etc.) of him do, and we have a concept of him, but that is all he is.

@fast,

I still haven't seen any satisfactory justification for the claim that mathematical objects exist but fictional objects dont. Apart from the circularities and special pleading pointed out so far, I think there are intractable problems with the realist position as expressed on this thread.
I assume that in order for some thing to have some property, then that property must exist, but the properties of mathematical objects are themselves abstract objects. So the only properties that, for example, numbers, could have, that confer existence, would need to be non-mathematical. I'll assume that three exists because I have three books on my computer. But I'm told that Lincoln doesn't exist, and Lincoln is a member of the set of all US presidents, a set whose only property is the inclusion of presidents. So, either that class doesn't exist or Lincoln does exist.
Anyway, as this is the severalth time we've had this discussion and there doesn't appear to be much chance that the objections will be met, I've pretty much had enough too. For those such as Zetherin, who think that this matter is somehow settled, be aware that there are plenty of philosophers who reject realism about abstract objects, Benacerraf and Field being prominent examples, and there are those who hold that fictional and imaginary objects are on an equal footing with mathematical objects, that all qualify as abstract objects, Zalta has done a lot to rigourise this position. Then there's Balaguer, who agrees with Egregias, that there's no truth either way. Articles by all of these, except Benacerraf, can be accessed through Chalmers site.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin: wouldn't you think it a bit odd were I to insist there is no fictional character named Sherlock Holmes?

@cws910,

ughaibu wrote:

For those such as Zetherin, who think that this matter is somehow settled

ME think this is settled? HAH, I am probably the most confused one here!

Egragias wrote:

Zetherin: wouldn't you think it a bit odd were I to insist there is no fictional character named Sherlock Holmes?

Yes, I would.

@Egregias,

[QUOTE=Egregias;138947]Who said Scooby Doo isn't a cartoon character?[/QUOTE]Me.

[QUOTE]Maybe the real issue is what it is to exist.[/QUOTE]To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties.

Quote:

The guys insisting that Rudolph and Scooby Doo exist know quite well that "Rudolph does not exist", spoken in the appropriate context, is true.

Good.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Quote:

They think, however, that if you are to insist (in a philosophical discussion) that the number three exists, then merely mouthing "to exist is to have properties" is not an adequate demonstration that Rudolph does not exist.

I'm not demontrating that Rudolph does not exist. I am explaining what "exist" means. Why should I demonstrate that Rudolph doesn't exist since we agree that Rudolph doesn't exist? I am saying what it means to say Rudolph does not exist. To say that Rudolph does not exist is to say there are no properties of Rudolph. By the way, there are no properties of Rudolph. Finally, I charge anyone that cites the properties of the fictional charcter Rudolph as confusing Rudolph with the fictional character Rudolph.[/COLOR][/SIZE]

Quote:

You might want to consider whether your arguments against the existence of Rudolph apply to the number three.

Rudolph has no properties. The number three does. [/SIZE]

If Rudolph did exist, Rudolph would be a concrete object. There is no concrete object to instantiate the existence of Rudolph. You will find no concrete properties to attribute to Rudolph.

If the number three did exist (which it does by the way), the number three would be an abstract object (which it is). There are no concrete objects to instantiate the existence of the number three, but then again, why would we think there were? The number three is not a concrete object (like Rudolph would be if he did exist). How do we know that the number three exists? Well, for one, we know what it means to say of something that it exists, and two, we are able to list properties of the number three. One property of the number three is that it's odd. Isn't that true?

As Kennethamy said, "Unless something exists, a property cannot be attributed to it, since, in that case, there would be nothing to which to attribute the property."

---------- Post added 03-12-2010 at 10:27 AM ----------

ughaibu;138953 wrote:

But I'm told that Lincoln doesn't exist

But doesn't he?
..............

@cws910,

fast wrote:

Well, for one, we know what it means to say of something that it exists, and two, we are able to list properties of the number three. One property of the number three is that it's odd. Isn't that true?

Then the number three exists in the same way the fictional character rudolph exists, right? As these abstract objects, you say?

@fast,

Let's consider fear. I guess everyone here has experienced it, so I dont suppose that there's much doubt that it exists. But does fear have properties? As far as I can see, one can only identify properties of individuals experiencing fear, fear itself seems to be an example of something that exists but has no properties.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;138949 wrote:

1. Scooby Doo
2. The concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo
3. The fictional character Scooby Doo
4. Every drawing, painting, movie, t.v. show, or otherwise representation of the fictional character Scooby Doo.

You keep mentioning the concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo, but you never mention the concept of Scooby Doo.

I'm still shaky on exactly what you mean by 2. You still seem to think Scooby Doo is a fictional character. The Scooby Doo character of course is, but Scooby Doo isn't.

@fast,

fast;138970 wrote:

You keep mentioning the concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo, but you never mention the concept of Scooby Doo.

I'm still shaky on exactly what you mean by 2. You still seem to think Scooby Doo is a fictional character. The Scooby Doo character of course is, but Scooby Doo isn't.

You just indirectly gave me a bruise. Yes, I blame you for why I just punched myself in the face.

Do we have a concept of Scooby Doo, or a concept of the fictional character Scooby Doo, or a concept of the character Scooby Doo, or just a concept of the representations of the fictional character Scooby Doo (or is it representations of Scooby Doo?!)? Scooby Doo is not the fictional character Scooby Doo. Right, that makes sense. All you're saying is that Scooby Doo does not exist... I agree. There is no confusion, like you think. I think everyone here has established that Scooby Doo does not exist. We should be competent enough to get that down, haha.

But now you just brought in "Scooby Doo character" :brickwall: What is this now?

@fast,

fast;138961 wrote:

But doesn't he?

Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that you believe that an abstract object, Lincoln, former US president, exists?

Philosophy Forum

numbers vs. words

Quick Links

My Account

able2know