OJPP  Vol.1 No.1 , August 2011
Pretense Theory and the Imported Background
Abstract: Kendall Walton’s pretense theory, like its rivals, says that what’s true in a fiction F depends in part on the importation of background propositions into F. The aim of this paper is to present, explain, and defend a brief yet straightforward argument–one which exploits the specific mechanism by which the pretense theory says propositions are imported into fictions–for the falsity of the pretense theory.
Cite this paper: nullGoodman, J. (2011). Pretense Theory and the Imported Background. Open Journal of Philosophy, 1, 22-25. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2011.11004.

[1]   Byrne, A. (1993). Truth in fiction: The story continued. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 71, 24-35. doi:10.1080/00048409312345022

[2]   Crimmins, M. (1998). Hesperus and phosphorous: Sense, pre-tense, and reference. The Philosophical Review, 107, 1-48. doi:10.2307/2998314

[3]   Currie, G. (1990). The nature of fiction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

[4]   Kim, S., & Maslen, C. (2006). Counterfactuals as short stories. Philosophical Studies, 129, 81-117. doi:10.1007/s11098-005-3022-x

[5]   Kroon, F. (2000). Negative existentials. In A. Everett and T. Hofweber (Eds.), Empty names, fiction and the puzzles of non-existence (pp. 95-116). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.

[6]   Lewis, D. (1983). Truth in fiction. Philosophical papers, 1 (pp. 261- 275). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195032047.003.0015

[7]   Priest, G. (1987). In contradiction. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. (2nd expanded ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

[8]   Richard, M. (2000). Semantic pretense. In A. Everett and T. Hofweber (Eds.), Empty Names, fiction and the puzzles of non-existence (pp. 205-232). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

[9]   Walton, K. (1990). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.