Puzzle

[Plastiquehomme]

I thought, as this is a forum devoted to a fictional character (or set of characters) it might be really interesting to pose this philosophical problem that I had to do some work on last year in a class. It's really really tough, but I am very curious to see what people think. Note I was reminded of this as I used Harry Potter examples in my essay on this subject

The question is how can we even talk about Harry Potter, or Hermione, or Dumbledore and so on. When we say, for example, "There is a book on my desk" the 'book' and the 'desk' correspond to objects - that is the 'book' I am referring to IS the book on my desk, the 'desk' I am referring to IS the desk in front of me. So it can be said that the book and the desk are the referrents (objects of my refering statement) of the statement.

Consider, then, the statement "Harry Potter is in Gryffindor Tower" what is the referrent of 'Harry Potter' here? The answer is - there isn't one - there is no object in the world that my use of the phrase "Harry Potter" can be referrents for. Similarly, there is no referrent for Gryffindor tower.

Anyone see a way out - I am really really curious to see what people think.

PS Sure, I see on a certain level it doesn't entirely matter - but it makes for a great puzzle.

[TMAUndomiel]

Oye...too much thinking for me at this time of day...try me later on this one!!

[Hermione]

Since they're characters in a book, don't they still exist even though they don't exist in real life?

I hope that made sense . . . somewhat . . .

[Holly Golightly]

I doo see what you are saying... HP, and all the characters, objects and places in the books do not exist in the physical sense, so it is a bit strange to be theorising about things that are, in that sense, not real...

But, with our little understanding of the way our minds really work, who is to say that something such as characters that we really think about lots, and theorise about in such a way that they in a sense are real, are not more real to us than physical things that we will never see, ie the sahara desert. I will probably never see it in my lifetime, but in my mind, HP and allthe scinarios are very real... so, excluding what is physically threre or not there as the case is... which is truthfully more real to me???

Now, doesn't that make you think!!!

*hrmmm, provided that I wrote it in such a way that it makes sense to people other than just me that is!!! After all, sometimes, I dont' explain things very well *

[Plastiquehomme]

I doo see what you are saying... HP, and all the characters, objects and places in the books do not exist in the physical sense, so it is a bit strange to be theorising about things that are, in that sense, not real...

But, with our little understanding of the way our minds really work, who is to say that something such as characters that we really think about lots, and theorise about in such a way that they in a sense are real, are not more real to us than physical things that we will never see, ie the sahara desert. I will probably never see it in my lifetime, but in my mind, HP and allthe scinarios are very real... so, excluding what is physically threre or not there as the case is... which is truthfully more real to me???

Now, doesn't that make you think!!!

*hrmmm, provided that I wrote it in such a way that it makes sense to people other than just me that is!!! After all, sometimes, I dont' explain things very well *

That's a nice point you make - you seem to be making something like the point that because they're real in our minds (not real in the sense that we believe they exist, but in the sense that they are real mental objects in our minds).

The only problem is that if you accept that, we cannot meaningfully converse about Harry Potter and so on. Because we will not be referring to the same thing. When I say "Harry Potter" I will be referring to my idea/mental object of Harry Potter, when you say "Harry Potter" you will be referring to your mental object of Harry Potter. This, of course, runs against the idea that when we talk about Harry Potter, we mean the same thing.

[Holly Golightly]

Hrmm, not necessarily Plastiquehommie...

Say for example, we both watch a movie. I think that the acting was terrible, the plot was horrendously stupid, bad direction, etc etc. Yet, you watched this same movie, and thought hat it was all awesome.

Now, we both have different ideas about it, and see it different mentalle, but the movies does still exist... and we can still discuss it as such!

[Plastiquehomme]

That's different, in a certain sense. When we talk about that movie, whether the acting was bad, the cinematography good, etc, the movie is the referrent - the movie is the actual object to which we refer. I agree

On the other hand, when I say "Harry Potter is in Gryffindor Tower" there is no actual object of referrence - that is no âctual Harry Potter or no actual Gryffindor Tower - so no actual object to act as referrent, except my mental object, which is different to yours.. But, as said before, in the case of the movie the movie itself is the referrent.

It would be different, though, once I tried to refer to a character in that movie - because there is no object in that case, except my mental object.[/b]

[Holly Golightly]

YAY! I love being right!!!

*hrmm, I was actually right, wasnt' I??? *

[Plastiquehomme]

YAY! I love being right!!!

*hrmm, I was actually right, wasnt' I??? *

Wellll sort of. You are right in that when we refer to a property of a movie, then there is no problem of referrence. But, that isn't quite getting at the problem - the problem is what are the referrents for the actual characters in the fiction.

[Holly Golightly]

Oh well, that's close enough for me!!!

YAY

*hrmm, it still doesn't take much to get me excited!!! *