Childrens' book philosophy 11: Mick Inkpen on the use/mention distinction

[This is from a story about a doll left behind when a family moves house; the "little thing" is the doll]

Suddenly the glare of a torch beam stung the little thing's eyes.

"What have we got here?" said a voice.

"Oh, it's nothing," said another. "Let the new people get rid of it."

"So that's my name," thought the little thing, "Nothing!"

Then, in the quiet, he heard the patter of feet and a mouse came running towards him.

"New People always try to get rid of you," it said, without introducing itself. It looked at him. "Seen you under the rug. What are you?"

"Nothing," replied Nothing.

"Well, nothing or not, you can't stay here, not with New People coming," said the mouse.


- from Mick Inkpen, "Nothing," in The Mick Inkpen Treasury

(Compare Odysseus' cunning trick against the Cyclops, described here.)

Peter Adamson's picture

Actually on further

Actually on further reflection I don't think this exemplifies the use/mention distinction (which would be like the difference between saying "giraffes are animals" and "'giraffe' is a noun") but rather just a case of ambiguity - "nothing" used in its normal sense or asa proper name. Still, I think it's a nice little philosophical example.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account associated with the e-mail address you provide, it will be used to display your avatar.