Neuroscience and anna; a reply to Glenn Hartz

Philosophy 75 (3):437-440 (2000)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Glen Hartz argues, that neuroscience reveals that persons moved or frightened by fictional characters believe that they are real, so such behaviour is not irrational. But these beliefs, if they exist, are not rational and, in any case inconsistent with our conscious rational beliefs that fictional characters are not real. So his argument fails to establish that we are not irrational or incoherent when moved or frightened by such characters. It powerfully reinforces the contrary view.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 100,865

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The Essential Anna.Colin Radford - 1979 - Philosophy 54 (209):390 - 394.
Rational fear of monsters.R. Joyce - 2000 - British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (2):209-224.
Star Wars, Emotions, and the Paradox of Fiction.Lance Belluomini - 2015 - In Jason T. Eberl & Kevin S. Decker (eds.), The Ultimate Star Wars and Philosophy. Malden, MA: Wiley. pp. 274–286.
Did the Greeks believe in their myths?Alberto Voltolini - forthcoming - Philosophical Psychology.
Schaffer, Sherlock and Shaddai.Hezki Symonds - 2023 - Philosophical Quarterly 73 (4):1244-1255.
Explaining Fictional Characters.Tatjana von Solodkoff - 2019 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 6.
Fictional Characters and Their Names.Hanoch Ben-Yami - 2022 - Studia Semiotyczne 36 (1):9-16.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
71 (#294,972)

6 months
9 (#477,108)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references