Not at all. I’ve enjoyed the discussion, but I’ve got things to do. Two bags of garbage are waiting by the door. I should get to it before my wife reminds me again…
About watching movies on streaming
- Thread starter Erosantonio
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fiction films marvel movies
- Status
Logan
Puritan Board Graduate
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It's simple. There is an equivocation on the phrase "fiction is not truth."
Assuming we all hold to the correspondence view of truth (right response to reality), that would mean that the audience would have to believe the fiction is true, and that the actor/author is trying to trick them that it is false. No one believes that. That's why it isn't lying.
Even worse, you still haven't dealt with the problem of the mustard seed.
Assuming we all hold to the correspondence view of truth (right response to reality), that would mean that the audience would have to believe the fiction is true, and that the actor/author is trying to trick them that it is false. No one believes that. That's why it isn't lying.
Even worse, you still haven't dealt with the problem of the mustard seed.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not going to cut it.
A dramatic performance is a special type of artistic discourse meant to be appreciated--oftentimes with no live audience. The context of the WLC is interpersonal relations ('between man and man').
Consider a parallel case with a speech-act: making a vow or an oath. The ordinary notion of "truth" in such a circumstance doesn't apply, because the statement does not correspond to reality until it is made. Other such examples can be enumerated.
As such, you must establish first that the WLC meant their exposition of the 9th C to apply to such forms of special discourse. It seems unlikely to me, reading the context, that it even entered their minds. Or it may suffice to prove that such distinctions between artistic and everyday discourse are specious. Either way, neither has been sufficiently demonstrated.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
C’mon you can’t be serious… I don’t have a wife and therefore can’t stop beating her because I never started such a thing in the first place. My question doesn’t suffer from any such logical incoherencies.I have an equally simple yes or no question: have you stopped beating your wife?
Definition of fiction: “something that is invented or untrue.” That’s not equivocation. The truth value of the statements uttered by the actor and whether they are truly from his heart has nothing to do with the perception of the audience or even with the existence of an audience, whether they’re being tricked or not.
Man, it says clearly there that it’s the speaking of truth and only truth “in all matters whatsoever.” A vow is a promise, it reflects a true intention in the heart.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No one here will accept that definition, since the sub-definition of "invented" has nothing to do with truth or falsity.
And the earlier question of beating your wife was a classical logical fallacy. He was trying to illustrate a point. At the risk of sounding rude, I don't think you got it.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes, but the broader context in the topic sentence controls what that means. We are Calvinists, after all.
The point of the vow argument is not regarding the nature of the heart, but the nature of the truth. I.e., namely the thing is not true until it is said. So we have a performative rather than descriptive notion of truth here. I would argue if truth can have a performative aspect that is spoken into existence, it can also have an aesthetic aspect.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
It’s the dictionary definition. If you won’t accept that, which will you accept?
Oxford dictionary:
Fiction: a type of literature that describes imaginary people and events, not real ones; a thing that is invented or imagined and is not true
It is entirely to do with truth and falsity.
There was no point to illustrate, my question didn’t have any incoherencies of that fallacious sort.
“All matters whatsoever” is quite unambiguous, what in the context would suggest otherwise? Also I’m not following what you mean when you speak of performative truth. Can you give an example of that? What do you mean, the thing is not true until it’s said?
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Actually Alex replied in post 59 to your point on history. He said it is the duty of historians to discover and report what truly happened. This can be hard when dealing with events from a long time ago, or where there are few primary sources. (It can even be hard when dealing with events which happened a day ago.) And this can lead to disagreement about what happened. But always the goal is to discover, as far as possible, what is true. To claim something happened when one knows it did not is to lie or to promote a falsehood. There are times, however, when we may claim something happened believing it to have happened but it is later shown not to have happened. That is not lying. It is, technically, promoting a falsehood. But crucially it is done without knowing it is a falsehood. Again, motive, which Alex has also addressed. Once the falsehood has been discovered to continue to make the claim would then be lying.
One can certainly put a spin on history. One can present the history of a figure or a nation in a better or worse light. This is not lying but can verge on the hagiography, for example, which is usually dismissed as not particularly useful in learning the full truth of a matter. But that is not the same as claiming something happened when one knows it did not.
The value we ascribe to Herodotus, for example, depends on the claims made by the author himself. If he claims to be telling a factual account of a war but is then shown to have fabricated events then its value is greatly diminished. If on the other hand the author's intent was to write a poetic interpretation or celebration of a military campaign one might forgive certain inaccuracies. But one would not use it as reliable history.
I'm not sure why this is such a "big" example for you in this discussion. Why confuse history with fiction? One would have thought we would all desire our historical accounts to be as true as possible. Because when they are not true they are worse than useless. False history is dangerous.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps he was too charitable to expect tricks from Christians when supposedly discussing an issue in good faith.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Using the canons of logic isn't a trick. It's called thinking.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
The thread has been divisive for a while now.
R
Request-Deleted member 11775
Guest
Guys please can we at least stay on topic
Will close the thread down as no real progress seems to be being made.
- Status
