SENIOR SEMINAR: FICTION AND FICTIONALISM
PHIL 483, Sec. 1001: MW 11:30AM-12:45pm in CBC C226
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Fall 2022
Professor: James Woodbridge
email address:
Course Webpage: http://jwood.faculty.unlv.edu/unlv/Phil483F22.htm
Office Hours: M 2:30pm-4pm, T 12:30pm-2pm, and by appointment
Office: CDC 426
Office Phone: 895-4051
Dept. Phone: 895-3433
SECOND PAPER
Pick one of following topics and write a 6-8 page/2000-2800 word paper fulfilling the tasks assigned. Do not use any outside resources in writing this paper--just the assigned readings, your notes, and your own thinking.
Your paper is due via WebCampus, through the Turnitin.com program linked to the Assignment listing, before midnight, Sunday 12/4. The file that you send me for your paper must have the following format for its filename: yourstudentnumber.PHIL483F22.paper2.docx. So that I can grade "blind", your name should not appear anywhere on your paper. Finally, you must submit a .docx (or .doc or .docm) file so that I can use Word to make comments on it. If you do not use Word, you must convert your file to this format before submitting it.
Topics:
1. In our reading and class discussion we have examined two different ways that one might develop a fictionalist account of some fragment of discourse: what we called the "prefix" approach and what we called the "pretense" approach (Caddick Bourne (2013) discusses the difference, as does Ch. 1 of Armour-Garb and Woodbridge (2015)). Each approach traces back to a specific account of metafictive discourse: Lewis's in the first case; Walton's in the second. Explain the central ideas involved in how each type of fictionalist account works (citing details of the accounts of metafictive discourse). Next, consider a putatively problematic fragment of discourse (other than discourse pertaining to fiction) and briefly explain what seems to be problematic about it. Lay out the basic elements of both a prefix-fictionalist account of the discourse and a pretense-fictionalist account of it (either from our readings or by "inventing" one or the other of these if necessary). In each case, explain how this fictionalist account of the discourse would avoid the putative problems a realist reading of the discourse faces. Next, in each case identify the main challenges the fictionalist account of the discourse would face, given the type of fictionalist account it is (Sainsbury (2010), Ch. 9 and 10; Richard (2000); and Stanley (2001) might help here). Evaluate which account does a better job and argue for its superiority as a fictionalist account of this discourse.
2. Fictionalist accounts are often motivated by metaphysical concerns, specifically avoiding certain ontological commitments that some way of talking would foist on speakers employing it realistically (the Eklund SEP article and Kroon (2011) can help here). Explain how such commitments are supposedly generated, and what might be problematic about such commitments, by discussing two different fragments of discourse where fictionalist accounts might make sense. In choosing your cases, pick one where the fictionalist account would be called "revolutionary" and one where the fictionalist account would be called "hermeneutic". Explain the difference between these two types of accounts, being sure to cover what each of your cases would say about the status of the analyzed discourse as it standardly operates (see Eklund again and Stanley (2001)). In each case, how is the fictionalist account supposed to avoid the ontological commitments that the discourse would otherwise involve? Explain the initial burden that a revolutionary fictionalist account has to meet to block eliminativism and why hermeneutic fictionalism avoids this. Then explain the initial charge of implausibility that confronts hermeneutic fictionalist accounts and why revolutionary fictionalism avoids this. Considering the particular accounts you have chosen, do you think that the revolutionary case can meet the initial burden and that the hermeneutic case can answer the charge of implausibility? If so, explain how; if not, explain why not. In each case, do you think fictionalism is the best way of understanding the discourse? Why or why not?
Be sure to look at my Paper Requirements and Policies.
Keep your paper within the page limit!