Is the mind material or non-material?

[fast]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

Yes it is. If you doesnt implicitly exclude them by defining "person" as "non-fictive person"

No, it's not. Don't let the wording misdirect you. Take for instance a toy car. A toy car is not a kind of car. It's a kind of toy. An imaginary person isn't a real person. In fact, it's not a person at all and so can't be a kind of person.

A fictional person is not an actual person, but it is a defined character that's endowed with a recognizably human personality through the means of an author's narrative. Human traits and characteristics that are both recognizable and actual because we deal with them on a daily basis, consequently we are able to relate to a fictional story with its set of fictional characters.

The problem I see is that the term "A" is being used to refer to the referent of term "B", where term "A" is fictional character and term "B" is character of fiction. The character of fiction that does exist isn't really in dispute because we both agree they are a product of author's. There really isn't a dispute about such characters walking around amongst us either. The facts of the matter isn't the underlying issue. It's the terms and how they are ordinarily used.

It's a matter of course that parents are going to say no when the child asks if they really exist, and if the parent isn't an armchair amateur philosopher, the quick and (I believe) correct answer is no. That's why the important distinction between characters that walk among us (which they don't of course) and the characters in works of fiction is crucial to distinguish between that which exists and that which doesn't.

When we start saying fictional characters exist because we realize characters of fiction exist, the problem of denying that characters of fiction walk amongst us becomes problematic (when using those words) as the distinction to which these terms are being used is commingled.

 

[DBT]

The problem I see is that the term "A" is being used to refer to the referent of term "B", where term "A" is fictional character and term "B" is character of fiction. The character of fiction that does exist isn't really in dispute because we both agree they are a product of author's. There really isn't a dispute about such characters walking around amongst us either. The facts of the matter isn't the underlying issue. It's the terms and how they are ordinarily used.

It's a matter of course that parents are going to say no when the child asks if they really exist, and if the parent isn't an armchair amateur philosopher, the quick and (I believe) correct answer is no. That's why the important distinction between characters that walk among us (which they don't of course) and the characters in works of fiction is crucial to distinguish between that which exists and that which doesn't.

When we start saying fictional characters exist because we realize characters of fiction exist, the problem of denying that characters of fiction walk amongst us becomes problematic (when using those words) as the distinction to which these terms are being used is commingled.

I think that's reasonable. I only wanted to make the point that fictional characters are usually endowed by their authors with recognizable personality traits in order to enable the reader or viewer to identify with their characters. So in this sense, these aspects of a fictional character actually exist within the human population in various combinations.

 

[fast]

The problem I see is that the term "A" is being used to refer to the referent of term "B", where term "A" is fictional character and term "B" is character of fiction. The character of fiction that does exist isn't really in dispute because we both agree they are a product of author's. There really isn't a dispute about such characters walking around amongst us either. The facts of the matter isn't the underlying issue. It's the terms and how they are ordinarily used.

It's a matter of course that parents are going to say no when the child asks if they really exist, and if the parent isn't an armchair amateur philosopher, the quick and (I believe) correct answer is no. That's why the important distinction between characters that walk among us (which they don't of course) and the characters in works of fiction is crucial to distinguish between that which exists and that which doesn't.

When we start saying fictional characters exist because we realize characters of fiction exist, the problem of denying that characters of fiction walk amongst us becomes problematic (when using those words) as the distinction to which these terms are being used is commingled.

I think that's reasonable. I only wanted to make the point that fictional characters are usually endowed by their authors with recognizable personality traits in order to enable the reader or viewer to identify with their characters. So in this sense, these aspects of a fictional character actually exist within the human population in various combinations.

But listen to what you're saying is being endowed.

Let's drop the word, "fictional" for a moment (and just stick with character) and let's say Pinocchio is not only a character in a novel, something as you say is endowed ..., but let's also say he's real. Does Pinocchio exist? If he's walking amongst us, then yes, he exists. That would be true independent of whether or not the character is in (oh say) a novel.

When I say the fictional character Pinocchio doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no being known as Pinocchio walking amongst us. When I say the character of fiction Pinocchio does exist, I'm saying the character as depicted as having traits is in (oh say) a novel, or whatever works was created by an author, play writer, etc.

If you think fictional characters are what's in novels that's been created by authors, you're not alone, as language has plastered enormous widespread confusion amongst many--so much so that the very mistake I'm pointing out has made its way into our lexicon to the extent that it's almost becoming absurd to deny the mistake.

The fictional character Superman doesn't exist, and we know this because there is no man of steel with special powers flying around in our skies. Nevertheless, people will persist in claiming that Superman exists, and they do this in part because they believe (as do I) that there is a character of fiction named Superman that appears in books, novels, and movies.

 

[Juma]

[
The fictional character Superman doesn't exist, and we know this because there is no man of steel with special powers flying around in our skies. Nevertheless, people will persist in claiming that Superman exists, and they do this in part because they believe (as do I) that there is a character of fiction named Superman that appears in books, novels, and movies.

Why do you think that "the fictional character" means anything else than "the character of fiction"?
Both refers to a character that is fictional.

And you are wrong: "the fictional character of superman" exist. It is the real instance of superman that doesnt,

 

[fast]

[
The fictional character Superman doesn't exist, and we know this because there is no man of steel with special powers flying around in our skies. Nevertheless, people will persist in claiming that Superman exists, and they do this in part because they believe (as do I) that there is a character of fiction named Superman that appears in books, novels, and movies.

Why do you think that "the fictional character" means anything else than "the character of fiction"?
Both refers to a character that is fictional.

And you are wrong: "the fictional character of superman" exist. It is the real instance of superman that doesnt,

I suppose I'm treating the word "fictional" as a denial term.

For instance, the term, "imaginary" is a denial term. It would be an error to say that an imaginary person is a kind of person that exists which is imaginary; instead, the adjective denies the noun. It serves to deny that there is a person at all.

 

[DBT]

But listen to what you're saying is being endowed.

Let's drop the word, "fictional" for a moment (and just stick with character) and let's say Pinocchio is not only a character in a novel, something as you say is endowed ..., but let's also say he's real. Does Pinocchio exist? If he's walking amongst us, then yes, he exists. That would be true independent of whether or not the character is in (oh say) a novel.

Agreed.

When I say the fictional character Pinocchio doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no being known as Pinocchio walking amongst us. When I say the character of fiction Pinocchio does exist, I'm saying the character as depicted as having traits is in (oh say) a novel, or whatever works was created by an author, play writer, etc.

Of course. Hardly needs stating. I'm just saying the author did not create the human traits that he or she describes in relation to their fictional characters. Lying is an actual trait: Pinocchio ...as are envy, greed, lust, desire, fear, etc, actual traits.

Obviously fictional characters don't have actual traits like a actual person, but unlike the fictional character itself, Superman, Pinocchio, etc, the traits that are portrayed are actual human traits that reside within every living human being.

 

[fast]

Agreed.

When I say the fictional character Pinocchio doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no being known as Pinocchio walking amongst us. When I say the character of fiction Pinocchio does exist, I'm saying the character as depicted as having traits is in (oh say) a novel, or whatever works was created by an author, play writer, etc.

Of course. Hardly needs stating. I'm just saying the author did not create the human traits that he or she describes in relation to their fictional characters. Lying is an actual trait: Pinocchio ...as are envy, greed, lust, desire, fear, etc, actual traits.

Obviously fictional characters don't have actual traits like a actual person, but unlike the fictional character itself, Superman, Pinocchio, etc, the traits that are portrayed are actual human traits that reside within every living human being.

Correct, fictional characters don't have actual human traits, but they are not portrayed as having human traits either. For instance, Pinocchio isn't a liar, and he's not even portrayed as having the human trait of being a liar either.

The novel character on the other hand, well, that's a different story. Correct, the novel character doesn't have actual human traits, but unlike the fictional character whom isn't depicted as having human-like traits, the novel character is depicted as having human-like traits.

Neither the fictional character nor the novel character have human traits but for different reasons. The fictional character doesn't have the property of being a liar because their is no actual Pinocchio walking amongst us. If he did walk amongst us, he wouldn't have the trait because of something we did, but he would have the property of being a liar. The novel character doesn't have the human trait of being a liar, for novel characters can't lie, but yes, I agree with you, some novel characters are depicted as having human traits. It's not what you're saying as so much as it's how you're saying it. See, you will still say that fictional characters are depicted as having human traits.

 

[Speakpigeon]

[
The fictional character Superman doesn't exist, and we know this because there is no man of steel with special powers flying around in our skies. Nevertheless, people will persist in claiming that Superman exists, and they do this in part because they believe (as do I) that there is a character of fiction named Superman that appears in books, novels, and movies.

Why do you think that "the fictional character" means anything else than "the character of fiction"?
Both refers to a character that is fictional.

And you are wrong: "the fictional character of superman" exist. It is the real instance of superman that doesnt,

I suppose I'm treating the word "fictional" as a denial term.

And it's not a denial term. It's a positive term that specify the scope of existence of the said character. A fictional character exists in a fictional world. By implication, it does not exist in the so-called 'real' world (i.e. the material world), as a 'real' character (i.e. material character).

For instance, the term, "imaginary" is a denial term. It would be an error to say that an imaginary person is a kind of person that exists which is imaginary; instead, the adjective denies the noun. It serves to deny that there is a person at all.

"Imaginary" too is not a denial term. It is a positive term that specify the scope of existence of the character as existing in the imagination.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

When I say the fictional character Pinocchio doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no being known as Pinocchio walking amongst us. When I say the character of fiction Pinocchio does exist, I'm saying the character as depicted as having traits is in (oh say) a novel, or whatever works was created by an author, play writer, etc.

I doubt very much your distinction will be adopted outside narrow philosophical circles.

If you think fictional characters are what's in novels that's been created by authors, you're not alone, as language has plastered enormous widespread confusion amongst many--so much so that the very mistake I'm pointing out has made its way into our lexicon to the extent that it's almost becoming absurd to deny the mistake.

Mistake? How come? Very nearly everybody mean the same thing by "fictional character" and "character of fiction". Mistake by stipulation? Why is that a mistake? Can you justify you claim?

The fictional character Superman doesn't exist, and we know this because there is no man of steel with special powers flying around in our skies. Nevertheless, people will persist in claiming that Superman exists, and they do this in part because they believe (as do I) that there is a character of fiction named Superman that appears in books, novels, and movies.

We know that Superman 'doesn't exist', i.e. does not exist in flesh and blood, because we know it's a fictional character.

Obviously, Superman exists as a fictional character. If not, the sentence "Superman is a fictional character" wouldn't mean anything and yet it certainly does.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

An imaginary person is a kind of person. The kind of person it is is specified by the term "imaginary".

We need to take language seriously rather than deny the evidence just because it suits our pet theories.
EB

 

[fast]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

An imaginary person is a kind of person. The kind of person it is is specified by the term "imaginary".

We need to take language seriously rather than deny the evidence just because it suits our pet theories.
EB

I do take language seriously, and I do believe "imaginary" is a denial term, and I believe an imaginary person is not a kind of person.

 

[none]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

An imaginary person is a kind of person. The kind of person it is is specified by the term "imaginary".

We need to take language seriously rather than deny the evidence just because it suits our pet theories.
EB

I do take language seriously, and I do believe "imaginary" is a denial term, and I believe an imaginary person is not a kind of person.

sure it is, your not a kind of person person is an imaginary person.

 

[fast]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

An imaginary person is a kind of person. The kind of person it is is specified by the term "imaginary".

We need to take language seriously rather than deny the evidence just because it suits our pet theories.
EB

I do take language seriously, and I do believe "imaginary" is a denial term, and I believe an imaginary person is not a kind of person.

sure it is, your not a kind of person person is an imaginary person.

Imaginary people are products of our imagination, and products of our imagination are not people. People are real, and things that are not real are imaginary, yet there is no actual thing, not even a thing to which we can point to and say it's imaginary. Do people have an imagination? Sure, but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary. And yes, it is a denial term. If you say of a purported something that it's imaginary, you are not saying 1) there is something and 2) the something is imaginary; instead, you're saying there is no such something at all.

 

[Juma]

Gibberish. The santa is a imaginative person. Thus imagined to have physical as well as superphysical properties.

But an imaginative person is not a kind of person.

An imaginary person is a kind of person. The kind of person it is is specified by the term "imaginary".

We need to take language seriously rather than deny the evidence just because it suits our pet theories.
EB

I do take language seriously, and I do believe "imaginary" is a denial term, and I believe an imaginary person is not a kind of person.

sure it is, your not a kind of person person is an imaginary person.

Imaginary people are products of our imagination, and products of our imagination are not people. People are real, and things that are not real are imaginary, yet there is no actual thing, not even a thing to which we can point to and say it's imaginary. Do people have an imagination? Sure, but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary. And yes, it is a denial term. If you say of a purported something that it's imaginary, you are not saying 1) there is something and 2) the something is imaginary; instead, you're saying there is no such something at all.

If you mean "real person" then say so, no just "person".

Language is the way we use to communicate and thus is significance is multiple:
1) it can be used as a tool to describe what you want to discuss.
2) it can be a study object in itself, showing featuters of interest.

You muddle these two aspects pretty bad. You think you discuss how certain concepts work but in reality you only discuss words.

 

[none]

Imaginary people are products of our imagination, and products of our imagination are not people. People are real, and things that are not real are imaginary, yet there is no actual thing, not even a thing to which we can point to and say it's imaginary. Do people have an imagination? Sure, but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary. And yes, it is a denial term. If you say of a purported something that it's imaginary, you are not saying 1) there is something and 2) the something is imaginary; instead, you're saying there is no such something at all.

in the context of the imagination imaginary people are people.
I really don't want to discuss this, plus this "but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary." I don't understand.
if there wasn't the thought of an imaginary person I might agree that there was nothing to point to but since there is the imagination imaginary people exist.
are imaginary people a series of electrochemical interactions in the brain, I say yes.

 

[Juma]

Imaginary people are products of our imagination, and products of our imagination are not people. People are real, and things that are not real are imaginary, yet there is no actual thing, not even a thing to which we can point to and say it's imaginary. Do people have an imagination? Sure, but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary. And yes, it is a denial term. If you say of a purported something that it's imaginary, you are not saying 1) there is something and 2) the something is imaginary; instead, you're saying there is no such something at all.

in the context of the imagination imaginary people are people.
I really don't want to discuss this, plus this "but there is no entity to instantiate the term to which we might try to use to refer to that which is imaginary." I don't understand.
if there wasn't the thought of an imaginary person I might agree that there was nothing to point to but since there is the imagination imaginary people exist.
are imaginary people a series of electrochemical interactions in the brain, I say yes.

Thing is this: there are, at least, two questions that gets muddled together here:
1) do fictional characters/characters of fiction exist?(obviously yes)
2) is fictional characters/characters real persons? (Obviously not)

 

[none]

no true scotsman arguement.
what makes a real person a real person?

 

[fast]

I'm gonna boil me some salty peanuts. Yum.

 

[Juma]

no true scotsman arguement.]what makes a real person a real person?

Sorry, should have written "real life person". Not "real person".

A real life person is a thing that you, in principle, could meet in real life.

 

[DBT]

Agreed.

When I say the fictional character Pinocchio doesn't exist, I'm saying there is no being known as Pinocchio walking amongst us. When I say the character of fiction Pinocchio does exist, I'm saying the character as depicted as having traits is in (oh say) a novel, or whatever works was created by an author, play writer, etc.

Of course. Hardly needs stating. I'm just saying the author did not create the human traits that he or she describes in relation to their fictional characters. Lying is an actual trait: Pinocchio ...as are envy, greed, lust, desire, fear, etc, actual traits.

Obviously fictional characters don't have actual traits like a actual person, but unlike the fictional character itself, Superman, Pinocchio, etc, the traits that are portrayed are actual human traits that reside within every living human being.

Correct, fictional characters don't have actual human traits, but they are not portrayed as having human traits either. For instance, Pinocchio isn't a liar, and he's not even portrayed as having the human trait of being a liar either.

Not sure what you mean...the novel character we are discussing is fictional character and as far as I can make out, Pinocchio, a fictional character, is described as being ''prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons'' - which is an actual human trait.

''Pinocchio (UK /pɪˈnoʊkioʊ/[1] or US /pɪˈnoʊkioʊ/; [piˈnɔkkjo]) is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the children's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883), by the Italian writer Carlo Collodi. Carved by a woodcarver named Geppetto in a small Italian village, he was created as a wooden puppet, but dreamed of becoming a real boy. He has also been used as a character who is prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons.''

The novel character on the other hand, well, that's a different story. Correct, the novel character doesn't have actual human traits, but unlike the fictional character whom isn't depicted as having human-like traits, the novel character is depicted as having human-like traits.

What difference does it make if Batman was depicted as being prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons, or Pinocchio, Rocky Balboa or any fictional character, if described as ''prone to telling lies and fabricating stories for various reasons'' this is in fact an actual human behaviour...not that these fictional characters have the actual traits, but that they are described as having these traits.

Neither the fictional character nor the novel character have human traits but for different reasons. The fictional character doesn't have the property of being a liar because their is no actual Pinocchio walking amongst us. If he did walk amongst us, he wouldn't have the trait because of something we did, but he would have the property of being a liar. The novel character doesn't have the human trait of being a liar, for novel characters can't lie, but yes, I agree with you, some novel characters are depicted as having human traits. It's not what you're saying as so much as it's how you're saying it. See, you will still say that fictional characters are depicted as having human traits.

But that's not exactly what I said when I said; ''Obviously fictional characters don't have actual traits like a actual person, but unlike the fictional character itself, Superman, Pinocchio, etc, the traits that are portrayed are actual human traits that reside within every living human being''

I clearly said that fictional characters don't have actual traits!