RE: Atheist VS Naturalist - the latter sounds more appealing to me...
June 5, 2020 at 5:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 5, 2020 at 5:26 pm by Rhizomorph13.)
(June 5, 2020 at 12:47 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:(June 5, 2020 at 11:39 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: You didn't fully read what I wrote. Vampires and werewolves are not supernatural. They are either real or not real. In the framework of fiction they are real and therefore natural.
Vampires and werewolves are supernatural, even if stories about them are eminently natural. Real and not real..existent and nonexistent, is beside the point of the natural and supernatural. It's not the same metric at all.
(June 5, 2020 at 12:46 pm)Grandizer Wrote: Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.
We are. We no longer believe that there is more than one stuff, and whether we call that stuff natural, supernatural..... or blorp, it's all the same stuff.
My point is that within the story they are natural.
(June 5, 2020 at 12:46 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(June 5, 2020 at 11:07 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: But there isn't anything supernatural in fiction! I like a lot of fiction where people do apparently supernatural things although even within those narratives they aren't doing anything supernatural. Think about it. In the show Supernatural they are hunting ghosts, werewolves, and vampires amongst other things. The thing is those things are natural in that fictional world so we are back to there being No use for the word.
Yes the concepts are couched in a world that provides an apparent divide between natural and supernatural but in actuality the outrageous things written about are, within the story, natural because they exist within the story.
Doesn't this render the term "naturalism" meaningless? We're all naturalists then, even theists and folks who believe in fairies and such.
Yes, I wouldn't call myself a naturalist. I go with monist.