Death and Harm

[therealUT]

You are completely lost. A reputation, at it's basic core, has to be attached to someone or something.

You admit as much by calling it "Huck Finn's reputation" above, which denotes possession, but in a following sentence then claim the reputation is not his.

You are making no sense whatsoever, and now contradicting your own statements.

Have a good day Trut. :hi:

I'm saying that we often speak very loosely with ordinary language, but, quite often, ordinary language doesn't adequately track what is really going on.

Yes, we say things like "Huck Finn's reputation", and, in a sense, we can have a coherent discussion and use that terminology. But, if we tighten our language to actually analyze the concepts, we can clearly realize that Huck Finn does not possess anything because Huck Finn doesn't exist. Thus, we must mean something else when we say "Huck Finn's reputation".

What do we mean? Well, obviously the narrative about a character, and, in this case, a fictional character (that is, a non-existent entity).

So, what do we mean by the reputation of a dead person (another non-existent entity)? Ah, a narrative about a character.

 

[therealUT]

.... and now contradicting your own statements.

I'm not committed to the strict and literal truth of the statements in question. In a strict and literal sense, I think it is false that a reputation can be harmed, false that a reputation about any x must belong to that x.

So, the contradiction exists if these claims are literal. As such, as literal, at least one of the claims in question must be false. And, I've admitted that at least one of the claims in question is strictly and literally false.