Isn't everything that we control fictional? (moved from singles)

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Started reading a short paperback about metaphysics last night (I gave up on the 200 to 300-page hardback about the philosophy of science after 18 pages; extremely technical for a philosophy book; I was digesting probably about 1% of what I was reading). That led me to thinking about how atheists say that God does not "exist" while almost every Christian I have heard insists that God has to "exist". That led me to thinking about what it means to "exist". Does a fictional character like Luke Skywalker exist?

I looked it up and saw that fictional is defined as being a creation of the imagination.

But when an architect designs a building that is a creation of his/her imagination. Are buildings fictional?

If somebody creates fictional people, places, events, etc. those things often do not merely reside in his/her mind. No, often people put them into words and sell those words. We call them novels, short stories, etc. How is that any different from an architect taking what he/she imagines, putting it into drawings and then having people follow those drawings and make it with their hands? Or an engineer putting his ideas into drawings and then watching as people follow those drawings and assemble a car?

It seems to me that everything that we control is, therefore, fictional.

 

[ImperatorWall]

That which, when you stop believing it does not cease to exist, is reality.

That which, when you stop believing it ceases to exist, is fiction.

 

[ambelle]

Wow. this is a GOOD post! i'm going to think about it a bit before I write a response. hmm...

 

[TheOliveSeed]

This kinda reminds me of Plato's forms.

I'm going to say Yes.

 

[trentlogain2]

your threads give me headaches. maybe i'm just dumb. i dunno.

 

[SnowyMacie]

Sorry, your post title reminded me of this gif series.

 

[SnowyMacie]

If we really want to get down to it, the only the only I believe we can ever truly know is real and exists is ourselves. For all I really know, you could all be a computer program, this could all be a dream, etc. etc. "I think, therefore I am". I can't ever truly know that other humans actually have thoughts other than their say so, but really, I can't actually ever truly know that they actually think as I think.
There's a lot of things we think exist that don't actually exists. Technically, there is no such thing as "cold", as cold is merely the physical reaction to the absence of heat, just as darkness is the absence of light. We still feel cold and are visually inhibited by darkness even though in reality, they don't technically exist.

As a result, I would actually argue the opposite. I can control my computer to a point, and thus it is an extension of myself and my thoughts, therefore, I know that is exists. I'm about to get in my car and drive to class, and thus my car will become an extension of myself as I will control the speed, direction, etc. of the car, therefore I know my car is real. I can't ever know if the other cars are real or just filler space because they are completely out of my control.

Furthermore, if you want to define what exist based on "reality", you first need to find reality. However, since everyone perceives the world differently, no one can ever truly know what reality actually is. It is very possible (albeit not likely) that we could see colors differently, but never actually. For example, we can all agree that CF's theme color is blue, however, what I perceive as blue, Trent might perceive as green. This also explains how conspiracy theories work, if someone is truly convinced the CIA was behind 9/11, no amount of contrary evidence could prove that they are wrong (if anything, they would use the evidence to prove a cover-up).

That relates to "I think, therefore, I am". I only know that my personal form of reality is real. It is my reality, it what experience, if I saw you in person, I would know you exist in my reality, and I probably exist in yours. The problem would arise when we begin to compare our realities in detail and find them to be quite different. We could both watch the same sermon and one person see a good, honest, God-loving preacher, and the other see a manipulative heretic, and while we may understand where the other person is coming from, no amount of evidence, reasoning, or argument could convince the other person that they are wrong. Due to how neurons replicate, it takes a very long time and a lot of effort to change a person's perception of something.

 

[ImperatorWall]

It is the nature of man in his pride to attempt to impose onto reality the definitions of his mind, when instead he should be allowing reality to dictate the definitions of his intellect.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

Moving this thread to Philosophy

 

[Paradoxum]

Started reading a short paperback about metaphysics last night (I gave up on the 200 to 300-page hardback about the philosophy of science after 18 pages; extremely technical for a philosophy book; I was digesting probably about 1% of what I was reading). That led me to thinking about how atheists say that God does not "exist" while almost every Christian I have heard insists that God has to "exist". That led me to thinking about what it means to "exist". Does a fictional character like Luke Skywalker exist?

No, Luke Skywalker, a person of flesh and blood, doesn't exist.

I looked it up and saw that fictional is defined as being a creation of the imagination.

Which is perhaps too simplistic a definition, or requires explanation.

But when an architect designs a building that is a creation of his/her imagination. Are buildings fictional?

I think the point is that fictional means it is only in the mind. The imagination of a building is fictional. A physical building that has been built by hands (not imagination) is a existing building. A physical building is created by hands, not imagination.

If somebody creates fictional people, places, events, etc. those things often do not merely reside in his/her mind. No, often people put them into words and sell those words. We call them novels, short stories, etc. How is that any different from an architect taking what he/she imagines, putting it into drawings and then having people follow those drawings and make it with their hands? Or an engineer putting his ideas into drawings and then watching as people follow those drawings and assemble a car?

It seems to me that everything that we control is, therefore, fictional.

The words and books exist, but the people don't. ie: If imagine Sarah, and write down the word 'Sarah', the word 'Sarah' exists. But what I imagined wasn't the word 'Sarah', what I imagined was a flesh and blood person of independent existence from myself. No such person is brought into exists by writing or even describing Sarah.

The main problem was that the word 'fictional' was under-defined. If something is fictional is it purely in the imagination.

 

[keith99]

No, Luke Skywalker, a person of flesh and blood, doesn't exist.

Actually Luke is a reasonably common name and Skywalker is not radically absurd as a surname.

I'd say there is a good chance a Luke Skywalker exists.

He is not a Jedi however.

I'm positive that some poor suffering kid who lives in London is named Harry Potter.

 

[quatona]

Started reading a short paperback about metaphysics last night (I gave up on the 200 to 300-page hardback about the philosophy of science after 18 pages; extremely technical for a philosophy book; I was digesting probably about 1% of what I was reading). That led me to thinking about how atheists say that God does not "exist" while almost every Christian I have heard insists that God has to "exist". That led me to thinking about what it means to "exist". Does a fictional character like Luke Skywalker exist?

Apparently not in the same way "real" people exist.

I looked it up and saw that fictional is defined as being a creation of the imagination.

But when an architect designs a building that is a creation of his/her imagination. Are buildings fictional?

As long as they exist only in the mind of the architect - yes.
As soon as they have been build - no.

If somebody creates fictional people, places, events, etc. those things often do not merely reside in his/her mind. No, often people put them into words and sell those words. We call them novels, short stories, etc. How is that any different from an architect taking what he/she imagines, putting it into drawings and then having people follow those drawings and make it with their hands? Or an engineer putting his ideas into drawings and then watching as people follow those drawings and assemble a car?

It isn´t any different - in that the products (the book, the novel, the building, the car...) exist outside the mind of the creator, in the end. However, the fictional people described in the book still exist only in our minds.

It seems to me that everything that we control is, therefore, fictional.

Be that as it may - it doesn´t make the difference between fictional and real persons/entities go away.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Does a fictional character like Luke Skywalker exist?

Yes, as a fictional character, and not as a flesh and blood human being.

But when an architect designs a building that is a creation of his/her imagination. Are buildings fictional?

Buildings that are only in the imagination or on paper could be described as "fictions". However, concrete buildings are not fictions.

It seems to me that everything that we control is, therefore, fictional.

That would be very unfortunate for me. I work on the third storey of a office building. If this building is fictional, I'm likely to break my neck as I fall through the floor and strike the ground.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

That would be very unfortunate for me. I work on the third story of a office building. If this building is fictional, I'm likely to break my neck as I fall through the floor and strike the ground...

The stone, steel, wood, etc. that the building is composed of are not fictional. But the form of the building is entirely the result of somebody's imagination.

 

[Paradoxum]

Actually Luke is a reasonably common name and Skywalker is not radically absurd as a surname.

I'd say there is a good chance a Luke Skywalker exists.

He is not a Jedi however.

I'm positive that some poor suffering kid who lives in London is named Harry Potter.

I've never heard of a Skywalker.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The stone, steel, wood, etc. that the building is composed of are not fictional. But the form of the building is entirely the result of somebody's imagination.

That doesn't make the building fictional. If that is what you are getting at.

The 'form' of the building, or for a better term, the design of a building exists not only in the mind of the architect that designed it but also on paper. No architect goes and 'imagines' a building and has it built from imagination. They base the design on what they know is possible in our reality.

You can imagine and design whatever kind of building you want. Physically constructing them, with real materials is another storey.

As for Luke skywalker , sadly he is only a fictional character and only exists in the Star wars universe. But that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't exist. You mentioned Luke, and I knew exactly who you were talking about. He exists to you and me. Not as a real person with a life of his own, but as the fictional character from Star Wars. You can meet Mark Hamill, he does exist. Or at least, I believe he does. But that's an entirely different subject altogether.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The stone, steel, wood, etc. that the building is composed of are not fictional. But the form of the building is entirely the result of somebody's imagination.

Agreed, but since the builders control the stone, steel, wood, etc, that goes into the making of that concrete building, it isn't the case that everything that we control is fictional.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[trentlogain2]

if everything we control is fictional then wouldn't that mean we are made up and pretty much fairy tales ourselves?