Comments on: EP 5.3: Tale-Spin’s Fiction

By: Nicholas Novitski

Nicholas Novitski — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:08:44 +0000

Speaking only as a philosophy student (and not as a published or practiced speaker, so feel free to add a whole shaker of salt), I feel like the reference to Leibniz is slightly forced. Certainly there were Greek and European philosophers who discussed potential states, paths not taken and possible worlds before him, so why say that they are “traced back” to him? In fact, why include him at all? The examples of speculation, wishing and planning are much more readily and broadly understood than references to Candide, however amusing. If you wished to keep the reference to modern philosophical problems (though I’m not sure why, since you don’t refer back to them in this chapter), it seems that you could simply say that many thinkers, ancient and modern, from Leibniz to /Name/, have struggled with modality, and here’s what modality means, etc. etc.

By: noah

noah — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:02:53 +0000

Absolutely. Thanks for the suggestion!

By: nick

nick — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:16:36 +0000

For the most part you use personal pronouns appropriately, in ways that decrease the reader’s cognitive load and facilitate understanding of the text, but this might be a tiny exception: “If we look at the first chapter of Pavel’s book (Fictional Worlds, 1986) he sketches …” could simply be written “In the first chapter of Pavel’s book, Fictional Worlds (1986), he sketches …”

By: noah

noah — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:09:10 +0000

Andrew, that’s great to hear! You’re just the sort of person I’m hoping will find this a book worth recommending.

By: andrew

andrew — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:52:17 +0000

I just want to say again, this is fabulous stuff. It is looking to be a progressive book, with a distinct analysis, bringing together and building upon a wide array of past thinking about these issues.