瑞福論關心虛構角色

Abstract

柯林．瑞福主張：「深信虛構角色不存在，而關心虛構角色，是有問題的。」此主張三十餘年來廣受非議，本論文試圖為文平反。筆者先清楚交代瑞福的主張，再檢討眾多對瑞福的批評，最後指出瑞福之正確，與批評者之錯誤。 導論以一個自問自答的思想歷程，具體而微地呈現瑞福的思路，使讀者有大致的掌握。第一章分三個階段來介紹瑞福的思想：一、提出問題並反省：怎麼會關心虛構角色？二、發展直覺：關心虛構角色是不對勁的。三、將直覺略為擴充，以「不理性」一詞來形容對虛構角色的關心。小結則強調瑞福的思想核心在第二階段，而直覺是掌握瑞福思想的關鍵。第二章將對瑞福的眾多批評分為四類：一、我們不關心「虛構角色」；二、我們對虛構角色的態度不是「關心」；三、我們「相信」虛構角色存在；四、深信虛構角色不存在，而關心虛構角色，是「沒有問題」的。介紹此四類批評之餘，筆者也交代瑞福的辯護。第三章則回顧瑞福與批評者之間的攻防。「動機」一節揭露了批評者對瑞福有強烈而先入為主的誤解。「錯誤理論」一節指出各種批評不符事實，且代價太高。「因果解釋」一節指出各種因果解釋是無關緊要的，對瑞福的主張毫髮無傷。「直覺」一節則指出評判瑞福主張的最根本依據是「直覺」，並說明眾多反對者的直覺其實和瑞福一致。最後筆者提幾個案例供讀者反省，再次試探讀者的直覺。對有相同直覺的人，瑞福的主張確實是成立的：深信虛構角色不存在，而關心虛構角色，是有問題的。

According to Colin Radford, being moved by the fate of fictional characters that are not believed to exist is problematic. This claim has been in dispute for more than thirty yeas. In this thesis I will defend Radford’s claim. I will start with Radford’s argument, and then introduce four kinds of opposite views, finally argue that Radford was right. In the introduction, I use an example to show how Radford thinks. In Chapter 1, I interpret Radford’s thought in three stages. The first is, finding the question and trying to answer: how can we be moved by the fate of fictional characters? The second, developing his intuition: being moved by the fate of fiction characters is puzzling. The third, describing the response of being moved by the fate of fiction characters as “irrational”. Finally, I emphasize that the second stage is the core of Radford’s claim, and that intuition is the key to understand Radford’s thought. In Chapter 2, I introduce four kind of opposite views. First, we are not moved by the fate of “fiction characters”. Second, we are not “moved” by the fate of fictional characters. Third, we “believe” that fictional characters “do exist”. And forth, being moved by the fate of fictional characters that are not believed to exist is “not problematic”. Meanwhile I introduce Radford’s replies. In Chapter 3, I indicate that the four opposite views misunderstood Radford’s motivation, and can be seen as error theories and causal theories, which are not only false to our experience but also irrelevant to Radford’s claim. Finally I argue that intuition is the key to decide if Radford is right. And our intuition is at Radford’s side. Even the opponents have the same intuition. So Radford’s claim is right, at least to those who have the same intuition with Radford. Being moved by the fate of fictional characters that are not believed to exist is problematic.