In other words - Conan Doyle created the fictional character Sherlock Holmes.Consul wrote: ↑December 19th, 2017, 7:03 pmThe Oxford Dictionary defines "to create" as "to bring (something) into existence", from which it follows that "x was created by y" implies "x exists/existed". Being an antirealist about fictional characters, I think that the sentence "Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character created by Conan Doyle" is false, because Sherlock Holmes does/did not exist; and what never existed was never created.Gertie wrote: ↑December 19th, 2017, 5:41 pmYou're just using a different way of saying 'Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character created by Conan Doyle'. We both understand that your set of words and my set of words mean the same thing, the rest is down to agreeing shared definitions of words like 'real' and 'unreal', when we already have a word 'fictional' which provides us with the appropriate and mutually understood distinction.
Must antirealists about fictional characters reject the creation-talk in the context of fiction? It depends, because they could accept a distinction between "real creation" and "fictional creation". To really create something is to bring it into existence/reality, an example being Gustav Eiffel's construction of his famous tower in Paris, whereas to fictionally create something is not to bring it into existence/reality. But what is fictional creation then? It is mere excogitation, the mere thinking up of something, with "x was thought up by y" not implying "x exists/existed". Note that the fictional creation of a fictional person or object is always accompanied by the real creation of (mental or/and physical) representations of it!
A simple sentence which conveys my meaning and you understand. Job done.
Here Erk asks are fictional characters 'real', using mind-independent as the criterion for realness. And I pointed out the materials used to 'encode' the description of the character are 'real', but it requires a mind to create and decode the information (Holmes) represented by the materials. Pretty much what you're saying here, and again something we all understand.
If you happen to prefer a different definition of 'real', you might get a different answer. If you pick a definition which means it's impossible to 'create' a fictional character by definition, then you'll just have to come up with a different set of words which mean 'create a fictional character'. My question is, why bother, what are learning about the nature of reality?
The whole thing is just playing with words and definitions, rather than saying anything new or interesting about the intrinsic nature of what is real. And doesn't tell us anything a 10 year old doesn't know when they read about the adventures of Dora the Explorer.