"Similarly, to maintain that Hamlet, for example, exists in his own world, namely, in the world of Shakespeare's imagination, just as truly as (say) Napoleon existed in the ordinary world, is to say something deliberately confusing, or else confused to a degree which is scarcely credible. There is only one world, the 'real' world: Shakespeare's imagination is part of it, and the thoughts that he had in writing Hamlet are real. So are the thoughts that we have in reading the play. But it is of the very essence of fiction that only the thoughts, feelings, etc., in Shakespeare and his readers are real, and that there is not, in addition to them, an objective Hamlet. When you have taken account of all the feelings roused by Napoleon in writers and readers of history, you have not touched the actual man; but in the case of Hamlet you have come to the end of him. If no one thought about Hamlet, there would be nothing left of him; if no one had thought about Napoleon, he would have soon seen to it that some one did. The sense of reality is vital in logic, and whoever juggles with it by pretending that Hamlet has another kind of reality is doing a disservice to thought. A robust sense of reality is very necessary in framing a correct analysis of propositions about unicorns, golden mountains, round squares, and other pseudo-objects"
(from Russell, Bertrand. Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. London: Allen and Unwin, 1919)
- ► 2011 (249)
- ► 2010 (266)
- ► 2009 (184)
- ► 2008 (146)
- ► 2007 (154)
- Literary pseudo-objects "Similarly, to maintain ...
- Room with 50 umbrellas Erik Satie was beat bef...
- Are there rational grounds for religious belief? ...
- Mac Haters of the World, Unite! My name is P*****...
- Steely Dan - Black Friday black friday on youtub...
- Exxon, IG Farben, Pynchon’s Gravity’s Rainbow To ...
- ▼ August (6)
- ► 2005 (57)
- ► 2004 (28)