Ojuice5001

G.K. Chesterton said, "People wonder why the novel...is read more than books of science or books of metaphysics. The reason is very simple; it is merely that the novel is more true than they are." That's what this thread is about: In what sense is fiction, which doesn't describe materially real events, more true than most writing that does?

The first thing to observe is that the vast majority of people feel a need to know both the truth about material realities, and fiction that is known not to describe material realities. Neither need can, in general, be satisfied by fulfilling the other. So clearly these are two distinct needs. (Some factual events can satisfy the "fictional need," but they don't represent the situation in general.) Now, if there is a need that can often be satisfied by fiction, but only occasionally by factual events, fiction must have an advantage or good property not posessed by factual events. And good qualities in general consist of harmony between different things that exist. (For instance, health consists of a proper harmony between the various organs of the body.)

This seems like the right point to clarify just what kind of literature I'm talking about. People who have had similar thoughts often use the word "myth," but I don't think fiction has to be even remotely mythic to qualify for this treatment--an episode of Seinfeld qualifies perfectly. I'm talking about almost any kind of fiction that is, and seems to be, copying more than just other fiction. It is important to see that when art imitates life, it creates something that is different from life, but not inferior. That's the paradox--if material reality is all that exists, how can a factually wrong depiction of it be in any respect an improvement over material reality?

I say that this means materialism must be false. In this world, fiction is less accurate than science and history. But if fictional conventions are in one respect superior, they must be true in an immaterial realm. And the reason why fiction is good is that it is good for this world to resemble the world of Being, to use Plato's term.

I put the word "Platonism" in the title because this thinking is like Plato's in a lot of ways. But there are differences between my conclusions and Plato's. First, Plato thought everything in the world of Being was changeless. I think that may well not be true, that it may be more like a world where fictional conventions are natural laws. Second, Plato thought of most values as being essentially moral, but notice that much good fiction is quite amoral, and therefore, so is some of the world of Being.

Finally, although this argument does not establish theism, it makes it more likely. If there are particular intelligent beings in the world of Being, and the most powerful of them also exert considerable influence in this world, they deserve the name "gods," and thus polytheism is true.

Clutch

On a board replete with catastrophic non-sequiturs, this one is a front-running candidate for Catastrophic Non-Sequitur of the Year.

It sounds like you might simply be alluding to idealizations, simplifications, or archetypes in fiction: the sorts of things that crystallize our thinking about certain aspects of the world, by depicting them more precisely or less vaguely than they are typically found in reality.

Now... how did this falsify materialism again? Your argument is: If S is useful but false, then S must actually be true. But S by definition is not materially true, so it must be, umm, immaterially true.

What you owe:

some motivated and coherent account of "true in the material world" versus "true" simpliciter;

some motivated and coherent account of "true in the immaterial world" versus "true" simpliciter and (hostage to answering the first question) "true in the material world";

and most importantly, some reason to believe the utterly baseless and baffling first premise, that if S is useful but false, then S must actually be true. That is, you need a sound proof from only the single undischarged premise "S is useful but false" to the conclusion "S is true". Only then will this be something other than a compendium of mistaken reasoning.

Good luck!

Theli

Ojuice5001...
I was not aware that the word "god" or it's plural form "gods", was used in a ranking system of sentient beings.
The criteria for being called "god" is far more than just being "best" or "most powerful", whatever that means.

Again, a question about criteria.
How do you judge if one is better than the other?

Explaination, please.

If they are Superior (with capital S) or not is up to humans to judge for themselfs. And if that is true, then the 'immaterial realm' is merely human imagination.

It's good because it's good?

Because you find fiction better?
How excacly is it better?
And what relevance does "better" have in this aspect?

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

monkey mind

</strong>

I don't know who G.K. Chesterton is, but I don't agree that fiction is more true that science or metaphysics. If you said that fiction is also true, or even equally true then I could agree to that. The belief that this immaterial world is more true than the material world is easy to debunk, just hit your head against a wall.

Ojuice5001

Theli:

They are both better at different things. Fiction doesn't work as a substitute for fact, and vice versa. Science, metaphysics, and history are better at describing the material world, which we live in. Fiction is better at describing the immaterial world, which we do not live in. Now, if there is a strong need to relate to a world that we do not live in, this world must have considerable reality intrinsically.

If materialism is true, than fiction is unrelated to anything greater than human imagination. But a fiction writer is trying to grasp something other than either his own imagination, or factual events. And he is succeeding. Therefore fiction points to something which is neither factual nor merely imagined. And how could such a thing be in the material world?

If the proper state of Being and Becoming is a state of unrelatedness, then there would be nothing especially good about a resemblance between them. But the human appreciation of fiction means that there is.

Ojuice5001

My head is a material entity. A wall is less real than the concept of fear, but more similar to my head. The similarity is of more importance, so a wall can damage my head more easily than the concept of fear, even though it has less reality.

I'm not saying definitely that the immaterial world is more real. But I think it's completely defensible.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

seanie

I'm having difficulty following this line of argument. However here's my tuppence worth.

Fiction is better at describing the immaterial world, which we do not live in. Now, if there is a strong need to relate to a world that we do not live in, this world must have considerable reality intrinsically.

The term fiction covers a wide range of literature, however it would seem clear that frequently fiction is used as a means of describing the material world which we do indeed live in. Fiction is used to provide a model, or analogy, of the real world. It can filter out complexities and ambiguities to highlight or explore issues that are of importance to us in the real world.

By and large I think writers use fiction in an attempt to interpret, understand and relate to the material world we live in, not some abstract world we don't. And even if we did have a strong desire to relate to some other imaterial world, it doesn't follow at all that that world must exist.

Wishing something doesn't make it so.

Theli

Ojuice5001...

So, your whole argument rests on the claim that fiction writers gather their info from a sort of fantasy realm? A place where all fiction from all movies, comic books and other literature actually happens? And it's not in any way connected to the real world?

No, it's related to the world around us.

A completely hollow claim. You are still speaking of an actual fantasy land.

Who?

A conclution based on flase premises.

The fiction or the fantasy land?

Ojuice5001

Almost. Particular fiction is not real in this fantasy realm, but generic conventions are. For instance, Wolverine is not real in this world, but the concept of a superhero is, and possibly, or possibly not, particular superheroes. The world we live in is only connected to the fictional world through the human imagination, very dramatic real events like Joan of Arc, and the actions of the gods, who live in this world.

What I've been trying to say is that if that were the case, fiction wouldn't be better than 100% factual accounts of things that really happened. If you dramatize the sinking of the Titanic, you are making it less like the real sinking of the Titanic, but you are improving it. How could a decrease in accuracy be an improvement? Only if the revised account bears a greater resemblance to something else objective.

The fiction writer.

Yes. Have you explained why fiction is a good thing, if a ficton writer is creating something that is not in any way more real than the material?

[ November 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ojuice5001 ]</p>

seanie

By what measure is the fiction better? That's a subjective judgement. If you want a couple of hours of escapist entertainment a fictional account may indeed be better than a documentary. If you want to know about and understand what actually happened when the Titanic sank then watching Learnardo DiCaprio almost certainly isn't your best option.

A decrease in accuracy could well be an improvement as long as accuracy isn't a subjectively important criteria, at least compared to entertainment.

People may enjoy bollocks more than reality but that's no reason to suppose that said bollocks actually represents reality in some otherworldly plane.