Some of you may have seen this before if you read a certain blog, but I'd be interested in getting some feedback about it. I myself found it on another message board, and it struck me as being quite an interesting question once one fleshes it all out.
So:
Statement: Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker St.
Is the above statement true, false, irrelevant or other?
Please provide your answer and a brief explanation of why you feel that way. If your answer is "other," clearly you should describe what alternative you have in mind.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Then loom'd his streaming majesty From out that wine-dark fog, And spake he unto all our crew: "Go forth, and read my blog."
I'd love to see this particular blog. Couldn't find it when I looked.
Regardless, I think you could say that statement is true. Sherlock Holmes did indeed live at that address in the reality he lived in. I think when you write a book, you're creating a whole 'nother reality. And in an infinite universe... You could be writing their history. So in this case, you could easily say Sherlock Holmes did live at 221B Baker Street. However, when writing the full title of his address, not only do you need City/Country/Zip Code (or whatever), you have to add World and Universe to it as well.
That statement is false. He's a fictional character and never excisted. Without the proper context, it should be asumed that the statement applies to what happened in the real world. However, if you established that he's fictional first, and within the stories he lived there, it's true.
It's the same as saying 1+1=4. I can make a short story based on a world where 1+1=4 but that doesn't make the statement true outside the context of that story.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Is it also false, then, that unicorns have one horn? Because if I wrote a story in which a unicorn was large and scaly with three horns and a bony frill, a lot of people would call that depiction of a unicorn "wrong." Similarly, if I were to write that Sherlock Holmes lived in Greenwich Village, that too would be considered "wrong."
A proposition (such as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street") can be true or false without referring to any actual physical thing. It's not even necessary to accept Nai's view of alternate universes, except in a figurative sort of way; whether or not there's a "real" Holmes or a "real" unicorn, we have a common idea of what those things are. Admittedly, such a proposition as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street" might be a little different than saying, say, that I live in Ithaca, New York, in that it's actually saying something somewhat more subjunctive, namely, "Had Sherlock Holmes existed, he would have lived on Baker Street;" it is, nevertheless, true.
It's also worth noting that saying this is different than saying that 1+1=4 in a story. Such a statement would be counterfactual, whereas as there is no real Sherlock Holmes who lived somewhere besides Baker Street, this statement is not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Is it also false, then, that unicorns have one horn? Because if I wrote a story in which a unicorn was large and scaly with three horns and a bony frill, a lot of people would call that depiction of a unicorn "wrong." Similarly, if I were to write that Sherlock Holmes lived in Greenwich Village, that too would be considered "wrong."
A proposition (such as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street") can be true or false without referring to any actual physical thing. It's not even necessary to accept Nai's view of alternate universes, except in a figurative sort of way; whether or not there's a "real" Holmes or a "real" unicorn, we have a common idea of what those things are. Admittedly, such a proposition as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street" might be a little different than saying, say, that I live in Ithaca, New York, in that it's actually saying something somewhat more subjunctive, namely, "Had Sherlock Holmes existed, he would have lived on Baker Street;" it is, nevertheless, true.
It's also worth noting that saying this is different than saying that 1+1=4 in a story. Such a statement would be counterfactual, whereas as there is no real Sherlock Holmes who lived somewhere besides Baker Street, this statement is not.
The difference being that we have a real Baker Street, in a real London, but no real Sherlock. But we don't have a real unicorn.
So, when I ascribe a property to Baker street, which is a verifyable place, with a verifyable history, it's a false statement, close to 1+1=4. But when talking about unicorns, which are clearly fictional, the context of fictionality is automatic.
And while most people would say "Unicorns have one horn" would be true, "Horns can be found on unicorns" is false.
As a side note: As a matter if coincidence, I'm just at the end of "Shadows over Baker Street", where Sherlock takes on the mysteries of the Cthulhu Mythos. This may have altered my perception. And did he really battle Deep Ones and Shoggoths, or is the whole book not canonical enough!?
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Is the above statement true, false, irrelevant or other?
Please provide your answer and a brief explanation of why you feel that way. If your answer is "other," clearly you should describe what alternative you have in mind.
Well you can't just say true, false, irrelevant or other unless you clarify what exactly that means in the given context.
"Harry Potter lives in England", true or false? Now, clearly if England means real life England, and Harry Potter means Harry Potter from the popular book series, false. There is no such person as Harry Potter. But in the world of Harry Potter, true.
The world of Harry Potter, or Sherlock Holmes, does not happen to be reality. They are, however, a separate reality/continuity unto themselves. "Fictional", one might say.
By the way, if you like people playing games with language and such, I would recommend Eugene Ionesco. I'm not much for absurdism, but Ionesco is funny as well as interesting.
It's the same as saying 1+1=4. I can make a short story based on a world where 1+1=4 but that doesn't make the statement true outside the context of that story.
Actually, I don't think you can make a world where 1+1=4. 1+1=2 always is true by simple defintion, because 2 is defined as the number that is 1 more than 1.
I think Tanthalas is right. It's all about implied constraints. "Sherlock Holmes lived at 221B Baker St." implies contraints within a mythos. "5 million women died in the Inquisition" doesn't, so even though it's found in the book The Da Vinci Code, most people would say it's simply false (instead of "mostly false, but true in The Da Vinci Code").
It's similar to saying "the car is wrecked." Which car are you talking about? That statement could be true or false, but needs more qualifiers. The mythos of a fictional story is itself a kind of qualifier, although less discrete than "Stan's car."
(And look at "Stan's car"! There are many Stans in the world. Which car is it? Implied constraints again.)
Or to clarify, it's a true (if somewhat vague) statement, and to continue Stan's argument, if we have to give such detailed explanations of the context of the various nouns in every statement in order it to be considered true, "true" will be a generally useless term. Obviously, the more vague a statement is, the more context we need to determine whether it is true or false
I must say that the statement is relatively meaningless and irrelevant without context. If I were forced to answer true or false (which you might suggest), I would say it is true, as the "definitive" Sherlock Holmes, namely that of Doyle, did live on Baker Street. The fact that there was no real Sherlock Holmes isn't really relevant. It would be like saying "pain and love do not exist" because they are not concrete. Abstractions can be just as true as concrete things.
No, it's a hyperlink! No, it's blue underlined english-language words! No, it's a series of lines and spaces! No, it's a series of ones and zeroes that my computer understands! No, it's a combination of red, blue and green dots that my eyes understand! No, it's it's a combination of red, blue and green dots that my eyes translate into electrical impulses that my brain understands! ad infinitum
Would any of you change your position if you found out that, at the time that Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories, 221B Baker Street didn't exist?
Would any of you change your position if you found out that, at the time that Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories, 221B Baker Street didn't exist?
Apparently, in linguistics there is a quality one can give to a statement, neither true nor falseness strict, but which does allow us to speak meaningfully.
We want to be able to say that, if donning the virtual realm created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, then Sherlock Holmes indeed lives at [foo] Baker Street, because to say that all sort of these claims are just false, isn't helpful when we want to talk about the fiction.
But we do not want just to say this, we want to say it without providing an annoying preamble like I did above ("if donning the virtual realm created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" or similar).
Descriptively, people will say that a claim about Sherlock Holmes straight is a truth-valuable proposition, or at least talk about it as though it were. Methodology dictates that there is some quote-unquote "good reason" for this to be the case. That 'good reason' seems to be that people are accepting the virtuality of the situation, and their conversation, from the moment that fictional referents are introduced, to the time the subject is left, all contains unspoken preambles mutually understood.
What does this mean? Linguistic Philosophy has got to be *the* most detached and unhelpful of all the pholosophies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Would any of you change your position if you found out that, at the time that Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories, 221B Baker Street didn't exist?
Of course not. The concepts are independent of each other.
What does this mean? Linguistic Philosophy has got to be *the* most detached and unhelpful of all the pholosophies.
It's not so much linguistic philosophy as it is trying to find a deep insightful conversation topic from a process our minds make in a fraction of a second.
Of course not. The concepts are independent of each other.
The reason I asked was that some posters (most notably Godofthegrove) were seeming to claim a qualitative difference between statements like "Frodo lives in Middle Earth" and "Ignatius Reilly lives in New Orleans" because Middle Earth is a fictional place and New Orleans is not. 221B Baker Street, at the time of Doyle's writing was a fictional place as well, though it is not now due to a renaming and renumbering of streets done in the 30's.
This is indeed a fascinating question. I'll admit that after a few minutes of thought I was unable to come up with a satisfying answer and instead read the rest of the thread. I think Tanthalas hit the nail on the head.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Golden Rule of forums: If you're going to be rude, be right. If you might be wrong, be polite.
I think it's true that Holmes lived at 221B Baker St, but the subsequent question is, which 221B Baker St is it? There's more than one, isn't there?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
Would any of you change your position if you found out that, at the time that Doyle was writing the Sherlock Holmes stories, 221B Baker Street didn't exist?
No, not really. If 221B is a real place -now-, then Holmes didn't live there.
GMontag: "Baker Street was the home of Sherlock Holmes" is a property of Baker Street.
- is simply false. There is a Baker street, but the worlds most famous consulting detective never lived there, as he is a fictional character. Holmes only excists in the minds of people, not on Baker street, not ever.
Ofcourse, percieved reality only excists in the minds of people too, making reality just as irrelevant as fiction. - But that's just the nihilist in me speaking.
It may be just because I've visited London a couple of times, and for me it's a real, actual place that I automatically think of it as being a part of reality, and not as a part of fiction.
This is a very interesting topic. Mostly because I'm an avid believer in nothing.
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
There is a Baker Street that also exists in peoples' minds, in the same fictional "world" in which Sherlock Holes exists, and in that world, on that ficitonal street, Holmes lives there. Theres is more than one 221B Baker St.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the light that you see. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel. All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
But the rainbow is an image of hope for many reasons, as it is a brilliant sight coming out of oftimes dismal weather.
There is a Baker Street that also exists in peoples' minds, in the same fictional "world" in which Sherlock Holes exists, and in that world, on that ficitonal street, Holmes lives there. Theres is more than one 221B Baker St.
The question is, is that factional Baker street the 'default' one, in the context presented on a real life discussion forum? Is diction prevalent over reality!?
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So:
Is the above statement true, false, irrelevant or other?
Please provide your answer and a brief explanation of why you feel that way. If your answer is "other," clearly you should describe what alternative you have in mind.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Regardless, I think you could say that statement is true. Sherlock Holmes did indeed live at that address in the reality he lived in. I think when you write a book, you're creating a whole 'nother reality. And in an infinite universe... You could be writing their history. So in this case, you could easily say Sherlock Holmes did live at 221B Baker Street. However, when writing the full title of his address, not only do you need City/Country/Zip Code (or whatever), you have to add World and Universe to it as well.
My helpdesk should you need me.
It's the same as saying 1+1=4. I can make a short story based on a world where 1+1=4 but that doesn't make the statement true outside the context of that story.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
A proposition (such as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street") can be true or false without referring to any actual physical thing. It's not even necessary to accept Nai's view of alternate universes, except in a figurative sort of way; whether or not there's a "real" Holmes or a "real" unicorn, we have a common idea of what those things are. Admittedly, such a proposition as "Sherlock Holmes lived on Baker Street" might be a little different than saying, say, that I live in Ithaca, New York, in that it's actually saying something somewhat more subjunctive, namely, "Had Sherlock Holmes existed, he would have lived on Baker Street;" it is, nevertheless, true.
It's also worth noting that saying this is different than saying that 1+1=4 in a story. Such a statement would be counterfactual, whereas as there is no real Sherlock Holmes who lived somewhere besides Baker Street, this statement is not.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The difference being that we have a real Baker Street, in a real London, but no real Sherlock. But we don't have a real unicorn.
So, when I ascribe a property to Baker street, which is a verifyable place, with a verifyable history, it's a false statement, close to 1+1=4. But when talking about unicorns, which are clearly fictional, the context of fictionality is automatic.
And while most people would say "Unicorns have one horn" would be true, "Horns can be found on unicorns" is false.
As a side note: As a matter if coincidence, I'm just at the end of "Shadows over Baker Street", where Sherlock takes on the mysteries of the Cthulhu Mythos. This may have altered my perception. And did he really battle Deep Ones and Shoggoths, or is the whole book not canonical enough!?
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
Well you can't just say true, false, irrelevant or other unless you clarify what exactly that means in the given context.
"Harry Potter lives in England", true or false? Now, clearly if England means real life England, and Harry Potter means Harry Potter from the popular book series, false. There is no such person as Harry Potter. But in the world of Harry Potter, true.
The world of Harry Potter, or Sherlock Holmes, does not happen to be reality. They are, however, a separate reality/continuity unto themselves. "Fictional", one might say.
By the way, if you like people playing games with language and such, I would recommend Eugene Ionesco. I'm not much for absurdism, but Ionesco is funny as well as interesting.
Actually, I don't think you can make a world where 1+1=4. 1+1=2 always is true by simple defintion, because 2 is defined as the number that is 1 more than 1.
It makes no difference. It's still an appeal to a fictional world.
"Baker Street was the home of Sherlock Holmes" is a property of Baker Street. "Holmes lived on Baker Street" is a property of Holmes.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's similar to saying "the car is wrecked." Which car are you talking about? That statement could be true or false, but needs more qualifiers. The mythos of a fictional story is itself a kind of qualifier, although less discrete than "Stan's car."
(And look at "Stan's car"! There are many Stans in the world. Which car is it? Implied constraints again.)
I think a better phrase than "should be" is "implies", but yes.
Or to clarify, it's a true (if somewhat vague) statement, and to continue Stan's argument, if we have to give such detailed explanations of the context of the various nouns in every statement in order it to be considered true, "true" will be a generally useless term. Obviously, the more vague a statement is, the more context we need to determine whether it is true or false
Yes it is.
Magritte's "Treachery of Images" kicks ass though. For those of you who can't read French, it says "this is not a pipe".
I must say that the statement is relatively meaningless and irrelevant without context. If I were forced to answer true or false (which you might suggest), I would say it is true, as the "definitive" Sherlock Holmes, namely that of Doyle, did live on Baker Street. The fact that there was no real Sherlock Holmes isn't really relevant. It would be like saying "pain and love do not exist" because they are not concrete. Abstractions can be just as true as concrete things.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles
No, it's a hyperlink! No, it's blue underlined english-language words! No, it's a series of lines and spaces! No, it's a series of ones and zeroes that my computer understands! No, it's a combination of red, blue and green dots that my eyes understand! No, it's it's a combination of red, blue and green dots that my eyes translate into electrical impulses that my brain understands! ad infinitum
Regardless, I think you get/got my point.
No. That has no effect on my position.
We want to be able to say that, if donning the virtual realm created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, then Sherlock Holmes indeed lives at [foo] Baker Street, because to say that all sort of these claims are just false, isn't helpful when we want to talk about the fiction.
But we do not want just to say this, we want to say it without providing an annoying preamble like I did above ("if donning the virtual realm created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle" or similar).
Descriptively, people will say that a claim about Sherlock Holmes straight is a truth-valuable proposition, or at least talk about it as though it were. Methodology dictates that there is some quote-unquote "good reason" for this to be the case. That 'good reason' seems to be that people are accepting the virtuality of the situation, and their conversation, from the moment that fictional referents are introduced, to the time the subject is left, all contains unspoken preambles mutually understood.
What does this mean? Linguistic Philosophy has got to be *the* most detached and unhelpful of all the pholosophies.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Because it may, in fact, be metaphysics, and get at some deeper truth about truth.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Of course not. The concepts are independent of each other.
It's not so much linguistic philosophy as it is trying to find a deep insightful conversation topic from a process our minds make in a fraction of a second.
The reason I asked was that some posters (most notably Godofthegrove) were seeming to claim a qualitative difference between statements like "Frodo lives in Middle Earth" and "Ignatius Reilly lives in New Orleans" because Middle Earth is a fictional place and New Orleans is not. 221B Baker Street, at the time of Doyle's writing was a fictional place as well, though it is not now due to a renaming and renumbering of streets done in the 30's.
From out that wine-dark fog,
And spake he unto all our crew:
"Go forth, and read my blog."
Current New Favorite Person™: Mallory Archer
She knows why.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
No, not really. If 221B is a real place -now-, then Holmes didn't live there.
GMontag: "Baker Street was the home of Sherlock Holmes" is a property of Baker Street.
- is simply false. There is a Baker street, but the worlds most famous consulting detective never lived there, as he is a fictional character. Holmes only excists in the minds of people, not on Baker street, not ever.
Ofcourse, percieved reality only excists in the minds of people too, making reality just as irrelevant as fiction. - But that's just the nihilist in me speaking.
It may be just because I've visited London a couple of times, and for me it's a real, actual place that I automatically think of it as being a part of reality, and not as a part of fiction.
This is a very interesting topic. Mostly because I'm an avid believer in nothing.
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to be the peace that you feel.
All that I yearn for, for richer or poorer, is to fill your heart on my own.
Gaymers | Magic Coffeehouse | Little Jar of Mamelon | Natural 20
The question is, is that factional Baker street the 'default' one, in the context presented on a real life discussion forum? Is diction prevalent over reality!?
• Call of Cthulhu CCG Servitor for the Netherlands!
Arkham, the 1920's. Investigators battle horrors from beyond time and space, risking life and sanity while conspiracies of cultists and malign servitors seek gateways for their outer gods to return...
Soon, the stars will be right! Great Cthulhu shall rise!