塞尔万的瓶子和其他问题

D. Proudfoot
{"title":"塞尔万的瓶子和其他问题","authors":"D. Proudfoot","doi":"10.26686/AJL.V15I2.4858","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \nAccording to Richard Routley, a comprehensive theory of fiction is impossible, since almost anything is in principle imaginable. In my view, Routley is right: for any purported logic of fiction, there will be actual or imaginable fictions that successfully counterexample the logic. Using the example of ‘impossible’ fictions, I test this claim against theories proposed by Routley’s Meinongian contemporaries and also by Routley himself (for what he called ‘esoteric’ works of fiction) and his 21st century heirs. I argue that the phenomenon of impossible fictions challenges even today’s modal Meinongians. \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":367849,"journal":{"name":"The Australasian Journal of Logic","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sylvan's Bottle and other Problems\",\"authors\":\"D. Proudfoot\",\"doi\":\"10.26686/AJL.V15I2.4858\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\nAccording to Richard Routley, a comprehensive theory of fiction is impossible, since almost anything is in principle imaginable. In my view, Routley is right: for any purported logic of fiction, there will be actual or imaginable fictions that successfully counterexample the logic. Using the example of ‘impossible’ fictions, I test this claim against theories proposed by Routley’s Meinongian contemporaries and also by Routley himself (for what he called ‘esoteric’ works of fiction) and his 21st century heirs. I argue that the phenomenon of impossible fictions challenges even today’s modal Meinongians. \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":367849,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Australasian Journal of Logic\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Australasian Journal of Logic\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26686/AJL.V15I2.4858\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australasian Journal of Logic","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26686/AJL.V15I2.4858","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

根据理查德·劳特利的观点,一个全面的小说理论是不可能的,因为几乎任何东西在原则上都是可以想象的。在我看来,劳特利是对的:对于任何所谓的小说逻辑,都会有实际的或想象的小说成功地反例该逻辑。我以“不可能的”小说为例,对劳特利的迈农学派同代人、劳特利本人(他称之为“深奥的”小说作品)及其21世纪继承人提出的理论进行了检验。我认为不可能小说的现象甚至挑战了今天的模态美农主义者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Sylvan's Bottle and other Problems
According to Richard Routley, a comprehensive theory of fiction is impossible, since almost anything is in principle imaginable. In my view, Routley is right: for any purported logic of fiction, there will be actual or imaginable fictions that successfully counterexample the logic. Using the example of ‘impossible’ fictions, I test this claim against theories proposed by Routley’s Meinongian contemporaries and also by Routley himself (for what he called ‘esoteric’ works of fiction) and his 21st century heirs. I argue that the phenomenon of impossible fictions challenges even today’s modal Meinongians.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信