Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Scott Mayers
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:53 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Scott Mayers »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:10 pm
Scott Mayers wrote: Tue Feb 16, 2021 4:38 am ... such as our particular Universe ...
Universe means, "all there is." There is only one universe. There cannot be more than one, "all there is."

This, "multiple-universe." nonsense is just science fiction. It's not philosophy.
[This thread is from last February?]

So, you assure that no OTHER 'universe' exists? You'd be hypocritical to believe that what you BELIEVE is our 'universe' is indifferently identical to your own perspective! "Universe", as a proper name of THIS reality was labeled from the GENERIC term, "universe", that was used to describe any whole unit classes in general. "Multiuniverses" don't exist to you because you beg the proper named "Universe" represents what is TOTALLY inclusive.

If I recall, you were religious, correct? If so, what word would you think includes you God's domain, heavens, hells, etc. I and many philosophers of the past would use "Totality", to define the absolute whole conceptually including ANY distinctive parts we call, "universes", as subsets of this whole. Logic uses the term, "universal", for instance, to refer to the present assumed universe of discourse. The use of the word preceded your belief in this term as a proper label. You might be thinking this as meaning, "Cosmos", which defines our present physically shared space. To presume multiple universes as meaningless to you cannot imply this is a fact of Totality (here I used it 'proper').

I've also just argued (this year) that we cannot experience DISTRIBUTED odds that we refer to by probabilities if EACH possibility does not have an even 'weight' of occurring. That is, we cannot have meaning to "free choices" if literally ONLY ONE particular choice is certain to occur with exclusion to all others. Therefore, each choice has to be literally real in EACH weighted classes that are equivalent or no actual alternatives exist [ie, not possible == not able to be posed or posited]. Therefore, more than our experiential universe exists!
trokanmariel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:35 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by trokanmariel »

Eugene Glus wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:22 pm Remember that famous scene in the Star Wars (both of versions) when Han Solo shot first, while it didn't shot first in the remake? G. Lucas in one of interviews said that Greedo fired first. Fans got angry (who didn't?).

Quite similar stories happened to Sherlock Holmes, when A. Conan-Doyle decided to bury his outstanding character, while after, because of many fans pleases, he left him alone well. (Alike things occurred even during pre-classical Ancient Greek epoch.)

From one side a writer has rights over any character he's made, on the other hand, some people do like those personages that they will never let the writer screw the characters up, and will be demanding to continue using of those heroes.

Honestly, I'm stuck. Some are supposed to get real. It's fantastic. And this is not the end: some half-animated movie rise another tickling themes about the characters' personal existence: like the characters were real. For instance, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" and "The Parallel World" (1992) both present situations where the characters start living their own, person, and independent from their creators life.

So, the question is: how to solve it? Is a fiction character an independent deity /a substance, or a concept/ that might live complely his own life? And finally what does it mean – to be a character?

/I apologize if this question must be raised in 'Metaphysics' section. If the moderators will decide to move it there, I won't object. Thanks/

Modernity after classic, being the inherent illogic that it is, should mean that characters can mimic the illogic as fantasy, and thus, be real
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by RCSaunders »

Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:52 pm If I recall, you were religious, correct?
Good grief, no! I do not embrace any ideology.
Scott Mayers wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:52 pm Therefore, more than our experiential universe exists!
Err, that's an argument every religious superstition embraces.

Even if there could be anything more than what can be known from experience, it could not possibly matter. Nothing matters if it has no relationship whatsoever with the existence we actually experience. How can something that can never be known and has no relationship to our own existence that affects it in any way possibly mean anything? It's absurd.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by popeye1945 »

The mind cannot tell what is real and what is not depending upon its presentation to the mind. Fictional characters presented in the medium of literature would be just as real as an unknown character of historical significance. The reality for the individual fictional or otherwise in such cases is totally dependent upon the mind of the reader. As this is not direct experience but indirect it is so much more the case. Fictional characters like real characters are totally dependent of the mind of a perceiver therefore under no circumstances do either have there own existence to another consciousness.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Those who claim the 'existence' of literary characters — and I may well be one of them — do not make a literal claim, of course. A claim to the real-world presence of Harry Potter is not actually falsifiable, but no-one is likely to take the claim seriously, for good reason. But there is more to it than this silliness, of course, or there would be nothing worthwhile for us to discuss here.

The 'existence' of Potter, Skywalker, and Holmes concerns the effect — influence — that they have had on real-world people like us. Who has had the greatest or most-significant influence on the real (human) world, John F. Kennedy or Sherlock Holmes? I think perhaps it is Holmes.

And yet there are those who will assert that Holmes' influence is down to Arthur Conan Doyle, and yet again, this literal assertion cannot be denied. But it isn't the point being made; it's just a distraction. We can assert that the Microsoft Word executable is a collection of bytes, and we would be correct. But we are at the wrong abstract level if we are discussing word-processors, and that's the problem with this literality. Yes, it is Doyle who originates Holmes' character and characteristics, but it is Holmes who exerts the influence on us all, not Doyle, even though Holmes originates from him.

Is influence sufficient to claim a sort of 'existence'? I think it is, provided we are clear what we are asserting, and what we are not.
User avatar
Agent Smith
Posts: 1442
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2022 12:23 pm

Re: Do Fiction Characters Have Their Own Independent Existence?

Post by Agent Smith »

What's the difference between real sex & virtual sex? :mrgreen:
Post Reply