Colloque : The Limits of Fiction
Conférence du 28 novembre 2024 : The Two Borders of Fiction: Believing and Entertaining
Intervenante : Enrico Terrone, Università degli Studi di Genova
Ce colloque, en anglais, organisé par François Recanati et Merel Semeijn, réunit des chercheurs qui explorent les limites du concept de fiction, ou les limites de la fiction elle-même. Les sujets abordés incluent la distinction entre fiction et non-fiction, la différence entre croire et concevoir, l’attitude fictionnelle, la périphérie de la fiction, la résistance imaginative, les inexactitudes dans la fiction, le paradoxe de la fiction, et d’autres questions apparentées.
Retrouvez les enregistrements audios et vidéos du cycle et son texte de présentation :
https://www.college-de-france.fr/fr/agenda/colloque/the-limits-of-fiction
Chaire Philosophie du langage et de l’esprit
Professeur : François Recanati
Tous les enseignements du Pr François Recanati :
https://www.college-de-france.fr/chaire/francois-recanati-philosophie-du-langage-et-de-esprit-chaire-statutaire
Le Collège de France est une institution de recherche fondamentale dans tous les domaines de la connaissance et un lieu de diffusion du « savoir en train de se faire » ouvert à tous.
Les cours, séminaires, colloques sont enregistrés puis mis à disposition du public sur le site internet du Collège de France.
Découvrez toutes les ressources du Collège de France :
https://www.college-de-france.fr
Soutenir le Collège de France :
https://www.fondation-cdf.fr/faire-un-don
Suivez-nous sur :
Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/College.de.France
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/collegedefrance
LinkedIn : https://fr.linkedin.com/company/collègedefrance
[Music] [Music] uh if everyone has a hand out then without further Ado I would like to introduce enrio teron who is an associate professor of Aesthetics at the University of Genoa and he’s going to talk about the two borders of fiction uh belief and entertaining okay thanks Mar and thanks Fran for inviting me I I’m glad to be to be here so just let me put my chronometer on so are we yes we have five minutes early can I start nevertheless or you prefer me to wait okay I I I will introduce uh slowly so the most interesting thing are coming after five minutes okay so I’m indeed as the title say I’m interpreting the the the title of the the workshop the limits of fiction by interpreting limits as borders so I want to to explore what what’s the two areas that are surround the the the realm of of fiction so usually there is there is just one border at least the the typ the popular border is the fiction nonfiction uh divide so the the usual assumption is that there is one border that is interesting when it comes to fiction and is the board that that separate fiction from non-fiction what I I want to argue in this talk is that there is another border that is worth considering and um is the border that separate fiction from something else which is not non-fiction and it’s difficult even to to give a name to that because it seems that is a sort of overlooked uh area area of cultural production and so I will call it this fiction just to give it a label but it’s it’s overlooked as a general concept but I think there are very interesting object in the in that era that is worth comparing with works of fiction so that that that’s the general plan to do that I I will first um introduce a sort of framework in which I I I think is worth um uh discussing things about uh uh fiction and its borders and so and especially the notion of artifact and representation that’s the first two section of of the end out and then in the third section I will uh just say something on the the border on which almost everybody agreed the fiction nonfiction border whereas the the core of the argument is in h page two of the end out in which I I will try to to to argue that there is also this other border that is uh as important as the other one and then uh the last section are sort of attempts to to to face objection and consider further issues that if I will time I will also say something on Section Five otherwise this may be uh reconsidered in the in the Q&A so artifacts um I I I think it’s fictions are are artifacts well there are three categories that are interesting the higher level category is that of artifact then within artifact I consider the cat of representation and then I tra fiction as representation so philosophy of artifacts is um a very active and the rising field in contemporary philosophy I just here I just take some key ideas so artifacts are objects that have three uh basic Dimensions creation structure and function so they are created entities and they are created to perform a function and then perform the function in virtue of a structure structure I mean some connection of elements and so creation is sort of configuration of the structure but this creation is made with the aim of having this structure fulfilling a function where function by function I means a sort of characteristic Behavior so artifacts are made by maker for users so they have a also um a sort of almost communicative structures just like in communication we have a um a speaker and an audience in artifacts we have makers and users and artifacts in a sense mediate between maker and users the debate on artifacts is often a debate on function what what’s the best way of characterizing function for for the purposes of of trating representational artifacts uh the the account of function that I that I favor is a normative account so I conceive of the function as a norm that governs the use of of the artifacts so basically the the function is not whatever thing an artifact can do but is what is meant to do what what what we we expect it to do so for instance the the the function of a pen is is writing even though I even though I can do many other things with with with the pen sure uh the function depend on usually as um as a dependence on the intentions of the maker so the function of the pen is writing because the person who created the pen uh had in mind had the intention that people use it for writing but um it may be that sometimes social norms can override uh intentions so certain artifacts can change their function just because they are used in a community in a way that is not uh exactly the same as what was originally intended So within the the vast realm of artifacts there are some artifacts that fulfill a function that is not practical uh that has not to do with matter and energy and movement but rather with uh thoughts and these are what I call representational artifacts or representation for short so in this case by representations I mean artifacts so not not mental representation but public representation representation created by by human human beings what’s the function of a representation well there is a long tradition about that it’s um standing for that’s the expression from oeland but it’s an expression that can be found also in Classics of the history of philosophy or in gri um essay um seminal essay representation are artifact that substitute absent or unreal entity so it’s a function of standing in for or substitution so it’s an object that is in in front of us but so replace something that is not necessarily in front of us but to to specify what this uh substitution function of representational artifact is worth considering um uh how artifacts uh do something on the on the mind of their user how the how artifacts act upon the uh the mental stat on the user so that’s a tradition that comes from from the philosophy of of depiction especially in the work by by gri himself and Richard volim and also in the philosophy of fiction so the idea that uh artifacts substitute something by uh eliciting mental states in the user of these representational artifacts and these mental states are twofold in a broader sense that the one originally intended by volum in the sense that they always put the the user of the representation um in in a sense um in confronted with two object the one object that is there to be to be perceived and that’s the representational vehicle and then what is represented and that’s an object toward which the the uh mental state can be of not only can have a different content but can also have a different attitude so some some art some um artifacts May elicit a sort of perceptual State like picture other artifacts can uh can have the function of eliciting a an imaginative State and that’s the idea of of fiction so that’s that’s where fiction um enters enters the picture so representation in general are artifacts that are meant to elicit mental state not only about the artifact itself but also about another object when the function of the artif is to elicit an imaginative mental state about what is represented uh the representation is a fiction so that’s that’s a waltonian approach to fiction and that’s section three of the end out fiction are representation the Mandate us to imagine what is represented example um capot break breakfast tiany the proper engagement with this novel is is not to believe what is is written in the novel that would be a sort of um misunderstanding to to to properly use this artifact to properly engage with this uh work of fiction one should form imaginings uh starting from from the the text on the other hand non-fictions can be characterized as a representation they magate us to believe what is represented so if we take another uh novel by by capot in called blood that’s the proper engagement with that is not uh praising the author for for his uh invented those character for having invented the events the the proper appreciation o of this work is to form beliefs uh or this to to recognize that the work ask us to form beliefs and to appreciate uh the the the writer for creating a representation that has this dysfunction so that’s a sort of consensus view even though there there may be disagreement about whether this distinction between fiction and nonfiction is a sort of um track a sort of natural kinds or essential condition or it’s just a sort of matter of of standard features but it seems that it’s it’s despite this disagreement there is a wide consensus that this is a very very effective way of of of tracing the the border between fiction and non-fiction and it’s also somehow assume that this border uh is the the only one so all the the the the the representation uh can be um organized distributed either on the fiction side or on the non-fiction side of of the Divide and that’s where where my my argument um show up and that’s section four page two of the handout it seems uh intuitive that capot is break ftis is a work of fiction and inal blood is a work of nonfiction but there are other wordss of art that are CLE representations they they fulfill the representational function they stand in for something else they uh have the function of directing our minds toward something that is not just the object in front of us but these objects seems to to resist the classification in this two categories fiction and nonfiction so first example U em Dickson poems a bird I I don’t want to read it because I will spoil it with my bad English but you can just read it on on your own while I drink a glass of water it’s not the whole poem is just the the first two STS and then the second work of art that is CRI representation is uh poan painting still live with pitches and PE so how can we locate these two in the fiction nonfiction uh divide are those fiction or nonfiction are we meant to to to believe that were PE and pites so disposed in SES kitchen or we are just meant to imagine that uh there there are um peers and pitches on a table in some uh fictional world it is that in this case the question is just beside the point it’s not crucial to to proper appreciation as it was crucial to to to uh form beliefs in response to to uh in C blood and form imaginings in response to breakfast breakfast aies it’s so these are representation we are we are meant to to to to direct our mind not only towards the surface but also towards the table and the PE and the paches or we are not meant just to to to direct our minds towards ink on a paper but also toward the the bird and the other animals that are described in the poem but it seems that we are not mandated to to to decide whether all this is happening in our world or in a in a in another world that not that is not ours seems that we are just meant to to consider this this these states of Affair and enjoy them and appreciate them but without this need to to locate them in one w as we do when we engage with fiction on the one end or nonfiction on the on the other end and so it seems that the mental state if we characterize the representation as I proposed as artifacts that that have the function of eliciting mental state that have a certain content but also a certain attitude it seems that the attitude that is mandated by the work of art like this poem of this painting is not the attitude of believing but is not the attitude of imagining either at least not the kind of imagining that is that is mandated by by work of of fiction it’s I propose it’s it’s another attitude which is also discussed in philosophy of mind and which is usually called entertaining I know I’m a where I acknowledge that is controversial whether entertaining and imagining are to distinct mental States indeed uh most philosopher maybe think that there are just one mental state there are just two names for the same mental state but it seems that in uh in this this case seems to suggest that at least there are two interesting uh mental reaction in response to to representational works of art that that are World distinguishing so for the moment uh even then I I I will go back to that later and I’m pretty sure that we will go back to that in the in the Q&A but for the moment I I I want to use the term entertaining to uh designate the kind of response that is invited uh by those works and that seems different from the kind of response that is invited by by uh paradigmatic fiction or by paradigmatic nonfictions and since these Works invite a mental state that is not imagining in the fiction sense and is not a belief either I I propose to to to use a a um new term to designate them and uh the term I I I I propose to use is dis fiction also because it seems to me that that’s another point that I I I will make later but I can anticipate it that uh this sort of reaction has some interesting connection with the Canan notion of disinterest that’s why at the end I decided to use the term this fiction to to to designate the this these under considered objects so another way of of of characterizing uh the these uh objects is by uh relying on on wal’s notion of of silly questions so silly questions according to Walton are awkward side effects of an unrestricted appreciation of the prescriptions to imagine the constitute the engagement with fiction W an example is when one wonder why the Rudell is speaking in verse so the is I have to imagine that is speaking in the in this way and this seems weird because it doesn’t seems the P the kind of person that has the the education to to to speak in this way so uh the seems this question that can arise if one just say Okay fiction is prescription to imagine I have to imagine everything and the kind of if on wonder whether uh these uh peers and pitches are really were really in San kitchen or are just in a fictional world this also seem a sense silly question so question that we rise but are according to Wal are not the kind of question that that are part of a proper engagement with with with fiction they are silly because they are beside the point they are not relevant and this sort of question uh are can be called silly meta questions um so um question about the the the status not about content as as in the otello example but about the the the status o of of the representation itself and to to it seems that if we if we trade uh uh work like like Dickson poem or some painting uh by sticking to the the traditional fiction on fiction divide we are forced to ask this silly meta question so we are forced to to to to to wonder whether this happens in sesan kitchen or in a fictional World whereas if we have at our disposal this uh third category of this fiction and so we we we respond to this work just by entertaining the content without deciding whether uh the relevant world is the actual world or the fictional world then uh silly meta questions uh do not arise anymore and this seems Advantage o of of the account so the the the final U uh proposal it’s at the end of section section four is to to say that the the realm of representational artifacts is to be divided not just in two as is usually done fiction nonfiction but in three three regions so in this sense there are two borders of fiction one b that divide fiction as an invitation to imagining as opposed to nonfiction as an invitation to believe but there is also this other border that has been overlooked but is interesting as well which is the border that that divide fiction as an invitation to imagine uh as opposed to this fiction as an invitation to Simply entertain what is represented in other words one may say that uh um a proper engagement with non-fiction requires something like savoring absense so non-fiction uh put us in contact with um subjects events that are part of our world but are not in front of us as the as the things we we can we can perceive we can live with and so it’s it’s a way O of U um being in touch with absent uh entities on the other hand fiction as an invitation to imagine it’s a matter of savoring unreality so we we are fiction as the function of um as a representational artifact to um direct our minds towards entity that are not uh in our environment that are not in front of us but there is more in that there is these entities are also meant not to belong to to our special temporal system to our to our world so there is no way even if we have a time travel machine or we can go wherever in the world we’ll never met sherock horms and so in this sense uh the engagement with fiction it has as a sort of aesthetic um upshot savoring unreality on the other hand uh these fictions uh like dickings some poem or some painting give us a different kind of Engagement with their content it’s not a matter of savoring absence around reality but rather savoring more possibility so we consider something just in the way it appears but we really don’t care whether this is is occurring in our world or is in another world we are just interested in the way in which uh things uh appear appear to us uh through the the the representation that that’s the the main proposal I just want to to say that it seems to me that um this kind of um uh artifacts that I call these fictions are somehow also underexplored in contemporary aesthetic especially poems there is quite there is a lot on novel films on traditional world of fiction there are also interesting Works going on on non-fiction but this and maybe this very speculative but one one possible explanation why uh these object that are really very interesting important for for for the history of literature for for human culture in general are somehow um overlooked or under underere explor in in um in contemporary state itics and one reason may be that they don’t they don’t fit properly the the fiction nonfiction divide that is a sort of dogma of contemporary Aesthetics but that’s just a sort of speculation why I’m always surprised why there is so little philosophy of poetry and and so that’s a possible explanation but it’s it’s a sort of side um thought what is much more important uh for for for for this talk is a possible uh objection to to to what I I proposed so to this idea that there is not just one distinction between fiction and nonfiction but there’s another uh important distinction between fiction and D fiction and that’s the the above mentioned idea that entertaining and imagining are just one mental state so one may object that it doesn’t make sense to to introduce a third category of representations that have the function of eliciting entertaining instead of imagining because entertaining and imagining are just the same mental state and so eliciting entertaining is just eliciting imagining so this fiction are just fiction in in these guys and if the that’s my my uh attempt to to reply to to to this objection so if the the objection is just it’s a sort of metaphysical level is the idea that if we want to really uh uh carve nature at is joint carve the mind at is joint there is just one joint which is the joint between representation of thing as uh real as belonging to our world as opposed to mental representation of things as not real as not um yeah um is not necessary in our world so what maybe the best way to put it is uh uh we represent things always with a sort of implicit word parameter and so uh there are two alternative if the parameter is the actual world then we have we have um believing if the par meter is uh not filled with the value actual world then we have the this other state which is entertaining imagining or simulating as you prefer so if the problem is just metaphysical I I I may reply I don’t care I I I’m drawing a a distinction that has a sort of phenomenological and aesthetic relevance so I want to say that there is a difference is what is like to to to respond to to a novel like capot breakfast at tiany as opposed to responding to a poem like so bird so we have as I said in one case we Savor a world different from ours in the other case we just Savor a mere possibility so even if at a deep metaphysical level entertaining and imagining are just one mental state there is still room for distinguishing them depending so if what make them one mental state is the fact that the war parameter is not uh doesn’t have the value the actual world that’s okay so if this is enough to have one mental state I’m happy with that but the there remains a difference in whether uh the world parameter has the value fictional word and that’s the the fiction case or if the word parameter is just unfilled is just uh uh it remains without without any any value so we just don’t care don’t care about about that so in one case one one has a engaging with the representation also involve awareness that that’s not happening in the actual World whereas in the dys fiction case uh um engagement to representation just involve indifference to whether this happens in the actual world or not so then a very important notion that that philosopher like L and Walton have highlighted is a notion of Truth in fiction so um Imagination in response to to works of fiction is also aimed to to to track truth it’s just that it’s tracking truth in the fictional world and so it makes sense to speak of Truth in fiction uh in in uh in um when one imagine in response to fiction whereas this notion of truic fiction doesn’t seems to to to to be relevant when when when it comes to to what I call this fictions so there is another another way of of of stressing stressing the distin and it’s it’s brentano idea that uh our language is not ideal so we we use uh usually we have a sort of prejudice in favor of of of assertion and belief so when when we say it is raining we are um asserting that it is raining and uh we we have a modifier to to to deny that so it is not raining but in an ideal language according to brentano we should use it is raining just to represent the um the possibility so to in a sense to to to to uh elicit a a a state of entertaining in the audience and so as we use not uh to to to negate the to deny the uh the State of Affair we should use another modifier something like yes to to turn uh the mirror um possibility into a an assertion but again if we have a um in in fiction if you use the this ideal language writing a work of fiction then we should use another modifier say yes the star to to stress that it is riging in the fictional world so again this shows that imagining your response to fiction is Not Mere entertaining is something that require a a stronger commitment and and it’s this idea of tracking truth in the work of fiction whereas this idea of just uh uh contemplating the the state of of a face that is represented without any commitment to truth is what characterize uh these fictions and two last very short points just to to to to to to strengthen this idea in in even philosophers like like UAH Kel who are uh defend a a a view of the Mind in which entertaining and imaging are just one mental state nevertheless in certain passage the of the this is his book uh the variety of Consciousness in which he try to give a sort of General taxonomy of mental state and in this taxonomy imagination and entertaining are just one State uh but he acknowledg that there is something there is some level at which the two states can be differentiated and also you right it seems introspective inaccurate to say that phantasmagoric experience are attitudinally committed to the unreality of their object instead they seem attitudinally silent on their object ontological status so that’s it just use a different name and did just write this in few lines without elaborating on that but this seems the the the the core idea uh that motivate this distinction between fiction and this fiction so in fiction um uh um require us to to be attitudinally committed to the unreality of their object whereas this fiction are rather altitudinally silent on their object ontological state so it’s not that we are meant to trade the represented object as unreal we are just meant to to to to don’t care about whether they are real or not as and to conclude this has an interesting connection with K notion of this interest in the third critique and um I I I quote the passage we wish only to know if this me representation of the object is ACC compined in me with satisfaction however indifferent I may be as regard the existence of the object of this representation so that’s the point in entertaining is not um interest in what is not real is just indifference to to existance and the the the uh upshot of this the final up of this is that entertaining um and this fiction may suggest that this interest which is uh in the aesthetic tradition is often considered the hmark of every aesthetic experience maybe uh can be better characterized as just the hmark of a very interesting but not total um all-encompassing kind of aesthetic experience so this interest is not the response to every aesthetic the hmark of every athetic experience so is not present in response to every work work of art but only uh to certain works of art and these are the works of art that I propose to call this fiction thank you [Applause] [Music]