I'm not familiar with the word "pluff". And the dictionary results don't seem to fit into the context. I would be interested in learning what you mean by it.

[/COLOR]
I used to use the term, "stuffed animal," but people jumped on me for it and told me that I should say, "plush" instead. I guess you can say I misspoke when I said, "pluff." I meant, "plush."

How does somebody make a depction of Rudolph unless they know the properties of Rudolph?

I have consistently referred to Ahab with the name, "Ahab", and remember, I'm also trying to make the same distinction between the person and the character, but I'm trying to do so without the ambiguity, so I'm making a distinction between A) Ahab, the person (which is not a character in fiction) and B) The character Ahab, the character Ahab (which is not a person), so imagine how it looks to me when someone says, "The cartoon character, Ahab." The comma usage implies that Ahab is a cartoon character, but I had tried to be clear that I was only using
Ahab" when referring to the real person; otherwise, I would say something like The character Ahab or The Ahab character.

Going back to Rudolph, we can say that A does not exist whereas B does exist where A is Rudolph (the reindeer) and B is Rudolph (the character in fiction).

The implication is that the question, "does Rudolph exist" is ambiguous. In one use of the term, the answer is yes, and in another use of the term, the answer is no. But, when not philosophizing, we all say no don't we, but that's not because there is no character in fiction. It's because there's no reindeer with concomitant (yet actual) properties.

Has anything been accomplished here since I've been gone, or are you guys still going in circles?

Today we tend to describe the world using numbers. Because of that we can bring beauty down to a set of numbers, life down to a four line equasion, etc. But is this the best way to describe the traits and patterns of the world? Inthe case of beauty, we can define bit with numbers, but we can't CREATE it. But with words, we can truly create beauty; we can describe the elements of life and we also can explore that which numbers cannot. Death, reality, and love. So what do you guys think?

But, in a context where there is no Ahab but only the character in fiction, there is plenty of room for confusion. Remember, while it's false that Scooby Doo exists, it's true that a character in fiction exists, so anyone that agrees with me (that there exists a character in fiction) may unfortunately have the propensity to think that Scooby Doo exists and say something like, The character in fiction, Scooby Doo exists, while failing to make a distinction between Scooby Doo (the dog--that doesn't exist) and the character in fiction (the character--which does exist).

I'm talking about semantic ambiguity. Since the creation of the character in fiction named, "Ahab," people may become confused in certain contexts that don't make it clear which Ahab I'm discussing.

I want to talk about Rudolph and whether or not he has properties, but I need to make a point first, so for the moment, let's suppose that a character in fiction (named "Ahab") is created that models you (Ahab).

Both you and the character in fiction have properties. For example, let's say you are tall. Thus, one property that you have is that you're tall.

The character is clearly not tall, as characters are technically without height. They are only depicted as having height, but although they don't have the property of being tall, they do have what we might call the fictional property of being tall, so although they aren't really tall (after all; they're merely characters in fiction), we do say (in short hand) that they have the property of being tall (as it's easier to speak that way), but that we say it, of course, doesn't make it true.

I agree that Scooby Doo does not exist. I would agree that there is a cartoon character Scooby Doo who is a character in a number of cartoons. Is that what you are claiming when you say, 'It's true that a character in fiction exists.'?

If you answer that question affirmatively, then it seems that we can at least set that issue to one side.

Yes.[/COLOR]

...............

---------- Post added 03-17-2010 at 09:13 AM ----------



There is no imaginary reindeer person, Rudolph. I can handle there being fictional properties, but saying there are imaginary properties is just going too far. Y cannot be a depiction of X if there is no X. There needs to be an X for there to be a depiction of X.

You seem to be talking about a product of the imagination, but because there is no imaginary reindeer person, the imaginary reindeer person has no properties and thus does not exist, and as such, there can be no subsequent depiction of it.

Yet I can describe what I imagine to others. I can tell an artist about what or who I have imagined, she can draw a depiction of what I imagined and I can tell her whether or not it is an accurate depiction.

What is the artist's depiction a depiction of?

Whatever he says it is of. He is the sole authority. Think of non-representational art. If the artist calls what he puts on canvas, "a dog in heaven", well, that is what it is a depiction of, whatever it is that he paints. The artist calls the shots.

But a cartonn is not non-representational art.
And my depction in words of what I imagined is not non-representational.

It is not representational art either. Mickey Mouse does not represent anything.

It is representational art.

If I describe to a cartoonist an imaginary person that I want to put in a cartoon, she can draw an image of that person and I can tell her whether or not it is an accurate depiction of that person.

In the same way, I could describe my uncle to a cartoonist and she could draw an image of him and I can tell her how accurate it is.

In both cases we are dealing with representations in words and pictures.

Any story (whether it is told in words or with pictures) of a character is going to be representational.

I had failed to distinguish between A) a character in fiction and B) a fictional character, and I thanked you for bringing the distinction to my attention, but I regret to say that I still fail to understand the distinction.

I ponder what "fictional character" means. In other words, I wonder what it means to say of a character that it's fictional. To say of a character that it's fictional seems not to be a denial that there is a character (such as a character in fiction) but a denial that the character is a non-fictional character.

I don't see that saying there is a fictional character as implying anything other than that there are characters in fiction. Imagine what it would mean to say there are no fictional characters. I would take that to mean there are no characters in fiction. I would not take it to imply that Scooby Doo (the real dog) does not exist. I would take it to imply that the Scooby Doo character in fiction does not exist.

A cartoon of Wily Coyote is representational art?