From a wikipedia article on 'character':
A character is the representation of a person, persona, identity, or entity in a narrative or dramatic work of art (such as a novel, play or film



from dictionary.com:
fictional character:
an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction (play or film or story); "she is the main character in the novel"


Most characters in fiction are fictional (i.e., they are imginary, or products of the imagination). As you say, there are fictional characters in works of fiction, but they are representations of person who don't exist.

---------- Post added 03-18-2010 at 11:00 AM ----------



Sure. It is a representation in pictorial form of Wily's attempts to do away with Road Runner.

How does it represent Wiley when there is no Wiley to represent?

It represents what it is the creator (or creators) imagined or conceived Wiley to be.

What represents Wiley?

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?

It sounds to me like you believe that the character in fiction named Wile E. Coyote (Wile Ethelbert Coyote?) represents someone's mental concept of Wile E. Coyote, but then again, it also sounds to me like you believe that the character in fiction named Wile E. Coyote represents Wile E. Coyote, and it's that last part I most disagree with.

We're dealing with three different things:

A)Wile E. Coyote, which if existed would go by the name, "Wile E. Coyote."
B)The creator's concept (a mental phenomenon) of what Wile E. Coyote would be like if he existed. I'll refer to this concept (which does exist) as the Wile E. Coyote concept, and
C)The character in fiction that also has been given the name, "Wile E. Coyote."

I don't particularly have a problem with you saying that C represents B, although I don't like it, but I do have a problem with you saying that C represents A. C cannot represent A, for there is no A. At least there is a B when you say that C represents B, so although I don't like it, I can live with it.

I did not mean to imply that everything we're dealing with exists. Even with the tool example, we're dealing with three things. In the beginning, there is only the idea. Next comes the drawing depicting the idea. Later comes the actual tool.

I shouldn't dare say this (as it will only add to the confusion), but I believe that there is a distinction to be drawn between the idea and the concept. Many concepts, for example, begin forming in early childhood long before infants are even capable of speaking. I may be mistaken, but I think most concepts form prior to the formation of ideas. Either way, it's easier simply to use one or the other along with the realization that they are both mental phenomenon that do exist.

In Monopoly, there is a toy car, but it's not used to represent real cars. It's used to represent the player that uses the toy car. In such a case, I would not use the word, "depict." I'm not limited by how I can use that toy car to represent something. For example, I could use the toy car and iron figure to represent two different actual cars that were recently involved in an accident--by laying them down and moving them to demonstrate how the accident occurred.

I think the artist can create a drawing that depicts what the person (the person that has the idea for a new tool) has in mind, and if you want to call what is depicted in that drawing as being a representation of the idea, then go ahead, but don't cross the line and say that it's a representation of the actual tool that has yet to be manufactured, for in that situation, you would then be saying that Y is a representation of X, and that's a no go (in my opinion) if there is no X.

ETA: Obviously, the concept of the tool didn't develop in early childhood, and no (or few) concepts are formed instantly--most over time, but the actual formation of an idea can be formed much more rapidly but only if there is supporting conceptual foundations underlying them. At least that's my take on it. Anyhow, I'm venturing too far into speculation to go on with that.

[/SIZE]

But when I say we're dealing with three things, I'm not meaning to imply that all three things exist, so although there are technically only two things, I bring up the third thing (that doesn't exist) to make the point that the character in fiction does not represent that third thing, precisely because nothing can represent Wile E. Coyote (the third thing).

When you first said, "Mr. Coyote" above, my first thought is that no one has created Mr. Coyote. What was created was a character in fiction.

Then, I recalled something I discovered and pointed out earlier about our use of terms. We are talking past each other. When you say, "Mr. Coyote," I'm thinking about a real coyote named Mr. Coyote, and when you say, "Mr. Coyote," you're referring to the character in fiction named "Wile E. Coyote."

A particularly important section:
The problem is that we're not using the term, "Wile E. Coyote" in the same way.

I am using "Wile E. Coyote" as a referring term that fails to refer, and you are using "Wile E. Coyote" as a referring term that succeeds in referring.

You are using the term, "Wile E. Coyote" to refer to the character in fiction. That does have properties and thus does exist, but what I'm using "Wile E. Coyote" to refer to doesn't have properties and thus doesn't exist.

Wile E. Coyote (the actual coyote) does not exist, but Wile E. Coyote (the character in fiction) does exist. The problem isn't about what it means to say of something that it exists. The problem is a problem of reference.

Go back to the tool example. In 2001, the inventor comes up with an idea for a tool. In 2003, the artist created a drawing that depicts the inventor's idea of a tool. In 2005, the manufacturer produced the tool.

Just as we need to distinguish between A) the idea B) the drawing, and C) the tool, so too do we need to distinguish between A) the idea B) the cartoon character named "Wile E. Coyote") and C) an actual creature with the same properties (yet non-fictional properties) as B.

When you say, "Wile E. Coyote," you're referring to B. When I say, "Wile E. Coyote" I'm referring to C. You are able to distinguish B from C when talking about the tool, but because there is no C with the Wile E. Coyote example, the difference seems to escape you, so that's why I said in italics earlier about having a real life example, for imagine what it would be like if a real creature was found having the same properties (but not fictional of course) as the character in fiction.

For some, but I hardly see it in my everyday life, nor when going out for parties, only number comes up are price tags and size of bank acc, and how big contracts you made with some customer ..etc.

Nor would I imagine any time soon, that some art exebition would put some numbers on display.

I don't objec to saying 'if something exists it has properties'. I do have qualms about saying 'if something has properties it exists.' Those two expressions are not the same. After all, I can easily assign a property to an imaginary being and that mere attribution doesn't give it the status of existence.

I don't agree that we can assign properties. Either something has properties or it doesn't. [/SIZE]

I don't agree that we can assign properties. Either something has properties or it doesn't. [/SIZE]

Well, if someone thought that an imaginary creature or thing actually existed, they would likely say that it has properties not that they have assigned properties to it. But simply because they say that are we to assume it exists?

I think we would both agree that the answer is no.

If there is a dispute over whether or not something exists, I don't see how it is helpful to say that this something has a property. The person who doens't think it actually exists can simpy say you are assigning a property to it. Just like the creator of Wiley E. Coyote assigned the property of speed to his imaginary creature.

I'm wondering what your conception of an imaginary person is. After all, when I imagine something that is not real I also imagine what properties it has. Someone elso could take my idea and change it and in changing it give this imaginary person different propeties. Isn't that equivalent to assigning properties to it?

I have to think. What you say means we can't talk any-more about thinks not scientificly proven. But how does science makes her progress ?

:eek:

Why would you think that? I think we do have the capacity to imagine things. And that includes things that have not been scientifically proven.

In science they can empirically verify the properties that something has. So in that context it makes more sense to claim that if something has properties it exists.
In philosoophy we are dealing with concepts and trying to clarify what they mean.