This video discusses Proper Names by John Searle. My reason for posting this is to ask the question should SF or science fiction be considered a proper name?
Searle's Theory
1. Names can be a single word, or a cluster of words, that define the name
2. When descriptive names no longer describe the original thing they're still valid
3. Names don't have to be statements, or necessarily true; they're contingent facts
4. Names have a unique and plausible use within language
5. Names can describe non-existent objects or persons
6. Objects or persons can have more than one name and be the same object or person
TL;DW: Or in this case, does the name science fiction make science fiction, science fiction?
Well... last time when I checked such discussions (and they became much more rare and much less hot, than before... like in prime times of SF) agreement came at that point -- that SF is just a common umbrella term for fictional worlds envisioned, where prime moving force are technology (and not magic or something, like in fantasy), and what social rummaging they instigate... in human societies that... just like today. Just like us.
ReplyDeleteWell. I myself lost track when and where I have read some good SF. I mean NEW one. Not old classic, that still unbeatable. In its width and depth
I see it all stumbled on stage of transhumanism/nanotechnologies -- we can rebuild even ourself, our old and boring bodies, yahoo!!...???? but well, how we can empathise we that that became less and less human? Unhuman even???