Bentham distinguishes necessary logical fiction from deceptive priestly and legal fiction
Evidence
For their object and effect, the fictions with which the Logician is conversant, without having been the author of them, have had neither more nor less than the carrying on of human converse; such communication and interchange of thought as is capable of having place between man and man. The fictions of the poet, whether in his character of historic fabulist or dramatic fabulist, putting or not putting the words of his discourse in metrical form, are pure of insincerity, and, neither for their object nor for their effect have anything but to amuse, unless it be in some cases to excite to action – to action in this or that particular direction for this or that particular purpose. By the priest and the lawyer, in whatsoever shape fiction has been employed, it has had for its object or effect, or both, to deceive, and, by deception, to govern, and, by governing, to promote the interest, real or supposed, of the party addressing, at the expense of the party addressed. In the mind of all, fiction, in the logical sense, has been the coin of necessity; – in that of poets of amusement – in that of the priest and the lawyer of mischievous immorality in the shape of mischievous ambition, – and too often both priest and lawyer have framed or made in part this instrument. — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 409
Categorization
- XREF: The priest/lawyer fiction-deception-governance chain foreshadows how the panopticon’s ‘inspection’ fiction governs and disciplines — connecting ontology to the surveillance chapters. — connects to: Bentham found reality unproblematic and fictions philosophically complicated. — Jeremy Bentham, The Panopticon Writings, 4; Knowledge of logical canons enables the detection of misleading legal arguments — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 97; Fiction multiplies ambiguity by exploring particulars that suggest general truths (+5 more)
- SEED: Article angle: Bentham’s taxonomy of fiction (necessary vs. poetic vs. governing-deceptive) as a schema for reading how institutional fictions — like ‘the watching eye’ — operate.
Related
Broader Connections
- Knowledge of logical canons enables the detection of misleading legal arguments
#expands(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 97 - Fiction multiplies ambiguity by exploring particulars that suggest general truths
#expands(0.80) - Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception
#expands(0.80) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608 - An illicit major fallacy distributes an undistributed major term conclusion
#exemplifies(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 865 - Justifying a legal system differs fundamentally from causally explaining it through politics or psychology
#expands(0.75) — Philip Chase Bobbitt, Reflections Inspired by My Critics, 181 - Fiction multiplies ambiguity and is written with the wrong, hesitant hand
#expands(0.70) — Hilary Mantel, A Memoir of My Former Self- A Life in…, 17 - Readers simultaneously believe fiction and know it is fabricated
#qualifies(0.70) — Janet Burroway; Elizabeth Stuckey-French; Ned Stuckey-French, Writing Fiction, Tenth Edition, 583