Mistake is to Myth What Pretense is to Fiction: A Reply to Goodman.

Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel) Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-03-08 DOI:10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5
Björn Lundgren
{"title":"Mistake is to Myth What Pretense is to Fiction: A Reply to Goodman.","authors":"Björn Lundgren","doi":"10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this reply I defend Kripke's creationist thesis for mythical objects (<i>Reference and Existence</i>, 2013) against Jeffrey Goodman's counter-argument to the thesis (\"Creatures of fiction, objects of myth\", <i>Analysis, 74</i>(1), 35-40, 2014). I argue that Goodman has mistaken the basis for when mythical abstracta are created. Contrary to Goodman I show that, as well as how, Kripke's theory consistently retains the analogy between creation of mythical objects and creation of fictional objects, while also explaining in what way they differ.</p>","PeriodicalId":74436,"journal":{"name":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","volume":"45 3","pages":"1275-1282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophia (Ramat-Gan, Israel)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-017-9812-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/3/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In this reply I defend Kripke's creationist thesis for mythical objects (Reference and Existence, 2013) against Jeffrey Goodman's counter-argument to the thesis ("Creatures of fiction, objects of myth", Analysis, 74(1), 35-40, 2014). I argue that Goodman has mistaken the basis for when mythical abstracta are created. Contrary to Goodman I show that, as well as how, Kripke's theory consistently retains the analogy between creation of mythical objects and creation of fictional objects, while also explaining in what way they differ.

错误之于神话就像虚伪之于小说:对古德曼的回复。
在这篇回复中,我为克里普克关于神话对象的创造论论点(参考与存在,2013)辩护,反对杰弗里·古德曼对该论点的反驳(“虚构的生物,神话的对象”,分析,74(1),35-40,2014)。我认为古德曼搞错了神话抽象创作的基础。与古德曼相反,我表明,克里普克的理论始终保留了神话对象的创造与虚构对象的创造之间的相似性,同时也解释了它们的不同之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信