Are fictional characters real?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
User avatar
erk
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: December 10th, 2017, 7:54 am

Are fictional characters real?

Post by erk »

Realism about fictional characters holds that:
Fictional characters are individuals or roles picked out by a name or description that
(i) is first introduced in a work of fiction
(ii) does not pick out a concrete individual in the real world.
Also, they are objective. They would continue to exist even if there was no one to think or talk about them.

The obvious answer to this would seem to be that no, they aren't real. They're fictional, and when we talk about them we're adding the implicit prefix of "According to the fiction of..."

However, critical statements like:
(1) Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character
and
(2) Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit
Can't be paraphrased away by adding "According to the fiction of..." because you'd end up with "In the fiction of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character" which of course isn't true - in the fiction of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes is a real person.

So, if fictional characters are not real then how do we say things like "Spirit is a fictional character" or "Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit?" What do we mean?

If I said "Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit ," I feel like what I'm implicitly saying is:
The fictional character Black Beauty is more docile in the book Black Beauty than the fictional character Spirit is in the film Spirit, Stallion of the Cimarron.

Do you agree? Are there any problems with this? Is there any reason to argue that fictional characters are real and mind-independent?
User avatar
JamesOfSeattle
Premium Member
Posts: 509
Joined: October 16th, 2015, 11:20 pm

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by JamesOfSeattle »

I (and Dan Dennett, see here) say that patterns are real. Fictional characters are a type of pattern. More specifically, they are patterns that have been specified in writings but not been embodied physically.

Um, not sure what else to say.

*
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14995
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Sy Borg »

I agree with Dennett on this one. It depends on your perspective. Basically, each person and each fictional character will have (ideally) a dynamic relationship with certain archetypes - repeated patterns of manifestation or tendencies. Archetypes, of course, are famously woolly, arbitrary and highly perspective-dependent. The Zodiac, Jung's and the MTBI/Big Five models are perhaps the most famous examples.

Yet there are eternal archetypes that not only appear in humans, but all other domains of nature, eg. one archetype is The Dominant. Dominant entities can be found in society, all animal communities, ecosystems, molecular clouds in space, solar systems, galactic clusters - everywhere in nature. The appearance of dominant entities triggers other archetypes, that is, a lack of dominant entities represents homogeneity (which can be seen from the perspective of extreme order or extreme chaos).

"The Dominant" archetype is more or less eternal; and will always be found in countless biological and simple systems, no matter how many individual dominant entities may be killed or destroyed. Other general archetypes are arguably too difficult to define to speak about with much confidence, although that has never stopped us humans from sprouting before :)
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Hereandnow »

erk:

So, if fictional characters are not real then how do we say things like "Spirit is a fictional character" or "Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit?" What do we mean?
There is a lot that is implicit. Why not just unpack it? You will find the implicit understanding that fictional characters in fictional settings (or real settings taken up for fictional events) that are taken "as" real. Contrary suppositions are ignored (suspension of disbelief, so called). It is the "taken as" that figures into the interpretation that makes all the difference. This is true also for things that are readily accepted as real: it is important to note that taking something AS real is subject to the same scrutiny. I call this a cup and its setting is a desk, and so forth. I am taking this presence "as" a cup and a desk. Only here, as opposed to fictional characters in narratives, there is "presence" which does not serve well the foundational need for finality in positing what is real, but it does, I think, some down decisively on what sets fiction apart from nonfiction, which is presence.

Now, this is a restrictive definition of 'real,' to set forth presence as its defining feature. What is presence? is not a question with a concrete answer.

So how about this: fictional characters are real in that in the act of entertaining them they are certainly something, some presence, there in the mind. Here, "taking as" would be about taking the one to be with a presence in one way, while the other in another. The difference would come down to how a thing is taken as. Thus, the matter turns on how "real" is taken up.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by LuckyR »

Fictional characters are real, within the consumer of the media that contains the character. Of course if two readers read Sherlock Holmes the two characters in the minds of the two readers are similar but different, not dissimilar to how I might be described differently if two of my acquaintances are asked to describe me.

Thus I am a real person but the impressions I have left on the folks I have interacted with are also real.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
erk
New Trial Member
Posts: 8
Joined: December 10th, 2017, 7:54 am

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by erk »

So fictional characters are made up by the author's imagination. They were simply an idea in the author's head transferred to a more permanent medium, which allowed for it to be read by other people and consequently for them to form a similar but not identical idea of the character in their own heads. Take an autobiographical work, or a true story about a historical character. What differentiates a work of complete fiction from these is that the characters in the fiction never existed concretely and mind-independently.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Gertie »

Do you agree? Are there any problems with this? Is there any reason to argue that fictional characters are real and mind-independent?
This strikes me as a semantic issue. Sometimes philosophers create categories and types of framing which don't neatly categorise everything, or rely on definitions which don't either, then get entangled in the semantic dilemma they've created. Sometimes, as Hereandnow says, you just have to unpack it.

A fictional character can be represented 'as a mind independent object' - as ink on a page, or someone playing a role. Or can just exist in a person's mind. Right now I'm imagining a 3 legged bunny with a monocle playing a mouth organ, it only exists in my mind (as far as I know). Tho an identity theorist might say that to exist in a mind is 'existing as an object' too, if mind and brain are the same thing.

Can ink on a page or film of someone playing a role 'exist independently of mind', well the book can't be written or the role played and filmed initially independent of mind, but after that the book and film as objects containing representations of fictional characters do, but those representations aren't realised (ie the information the ink on paper symbols represent isn't 'decoded' into a character) without a mind. That's really pretty straightforward isn't it, we all understand that. Then what you then decide to categorise as 'real' is just a label used for convenience, the convenience relying on us all agreeing the definition.

Or maybe there are more difficult issues here I'm missing?


To look at your example now, again surely this is about how words are used rather that the intrinsic nature of what's being discussed -
However, critical statements like:
(1) Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character
and
(2) Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit
Can't be paraphrased away by adding "According to the fiction of..." because you'd end up with "In the fiction of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character" which of course isn't true - in the fiction of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes is a real person.
(1) 'Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character' doesn't need the tautological clarification 'according to the fiction of...', hence people instead say things like 'created by Arthur Conan Doyle'.

But

(2) Black Beauty is more docile than Spirit followed by 'according to the fiction of....' isn't a tautology, and does add clarification.

The issue is the context of using that form of words. In the Sherlock Holmes example, the tautology effectively creates a context within the already existing context of SH being a fictional chartacter. It's within that pre-existing fictional context, that SH is real. That's all.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Consul »

In my understanding, unreality is part of the concept of fictionality, which makes me an antirealist about fictional objects or persons.

"The following table reports claims made about some of the more simple sentences favoring realism. On the right is a view (or more than one view) that an irrealist can adopt (if there’s more than one option, my preferred ones are asterisked).

Problem sentence —— Irrealist treatments

There are fictional characters. —— Paraphrase: There are fictions according to which there are specific characters.

Holmes lived in Baker Street. —— (i) *Faithful but not true. (ii) *True under the presupposition that there is such a person as Holmes. (iii) Replaceable by: “According to the stories, Holmes lived in Baker Street”.

Anna Karenina is more intelligent than Emma Bovary. —— (i) According to the fictions Anna Karenina and Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina is more intelligent than Emma Bovary. (ii) *True under the presupposition that there are such people.

x represents Holmes (himself, the real Holmes). —— For some F, according to x, Holmes (himself, the real Holmes) is F.

Sally thought about Pegasus. —— For some F, Sally entertained a propositional attitude with the content that Pegasus was F.

Holmes is famous (as literary sociology). —— Many people think about Holmes (in the properly deferential way).

The Greeks worshipped Zeus. —— (i) *True only under the presupposition that there is such a god as Zeus. (ii) *Replaceable by: The Greeks sincerely went through the motions of worshipping Zeus.

Some characters in the Classical Dictionary are mythological, but most of them really existed. —— Replaceable by: According to the Classical Dictionary, there are many characters, some did not really exist but many did."


(Sainsbury, R. M. Fiction and Fictionalism. New York: Routledge, 2010. p. 150)

As for statements one makes in the context of fiction:

"There are prefixes or prefaces (explicit or implicit) that rob all that comes after of assertoric force. They disown or cancel what follows, no matter what that may be. Once the assertoric force is cancelled, no amount of tub-thumping will regain it. If you’ve disowned what follows, it doesn’t matter whether you then say just that eating people is wrong, or whether you say it’s true in the most robustly realist sense imaginable that eating people is wrong, or whether you say the wrongness of eating people is built into the very fabric of mind-independent reality—whichever you say, it comes pre-cancelled.
Here are some examples of disowning prefixes and prefaces.

(1) According to the pack of lies my opponent has told you. . . .
(2) I shall say much that I do not believe, starting now.
(3) According to the Sherlock Holmes stories. . . .
(4) What follows is true according to the Holmes stories.
(5) Let’s make believe the Holmes stories are true, though they aren’t.

I classify (1), (3), and (4) as prefixes, (2) and (5) as prefaces. (So in view of (4), the distinction I’m drawing is not between complete sentences and mere phrases.) When the assertoric force of what follows is cancelled by a prefix, straightway some other assertion takes its place: an assertion, as it might be, about what my opponent’s lies or the Holmes stories say or imply. Not so for prefaces. In the case of (5), a replacement is at least suggested, but it is not yet asserted. In the case of (2), no replacement assertion is even suggested."


(Lewis, David. "Quasi-Realism is Fictionalism." In Fictionalism in Metaphysics, edited by Mark Eli Kalderon, 314-321. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. p. 315)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Consul »

Hereandnow wrote: December 17th, 2017, 1:19 pmSo how about this: fictional characters are real in that in the act of entertaining them they are certainly something, some presence, there in the mind. Here, "taking as" would be about taking the one to be with a presence in one way, while the other in another. The difference would come down to how a thing is taken as. Thus, the matter turns on how "real" is taken up.
There is a difference between fictional persons or objects, which I think are nothing but nonexistent/nonreal objects of thought (mere intentional objects), and existent/real mental or physical representations (concepts, ideas, thoughts, images, pictures, texts) of them. When you think of Sherlock Holmes, what is present in your mind isn't Sherlock Holmes but certain representations of him.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Consul »

erk wrote: December 18th, 2017, 12:28 pm So fictional characters are made up by the author's imagination. They were simply an idea in the author's head transferred to a more permanent medium, which allowed for it to be read by other people and consequently for them to form a similar but not identical idea of the character in their own heads. Take an autobiographical work, or a true story about a historical character. What differentiates a work of complete fiction from these is that the characters in the fiction never existed concretely and mind-independently.
When I think of or imagine Darth Vader, I have a certain idea or image of him in my mind, but the object of my thought or imagination isn't any Darth-Vader-idea or -image but Darth Vader himself, who is neither a mental idea nor a mental image. The proper name "Darth Vader" does not refer to any idea or image of Darth Vader but to Darth Vader himself. The name of my/our Darth-Vader-idea isn't "Darth Vader" but "my/our Darth-Vader-idea". Generally, (mental or physical) representations of fictional persons or objects don't themselves have the name of who or what they represent.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Consul »

Gertie wrote: December 18th, 2017, 2:44 pm(1) 'Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character' doesn't need the tautological clarification 'according to the fiction of...', hence people instead say things like 'created by Arthur Conan Doyle'.
If fictional characters don't exist/are unreal—which I think is the case—, they cannot have been created, since to create something is to bring it into existence/reality. What Doyle really created are certain textual representations of Sherlock Holmes and thereby a common cultural idea or concept of him; but Sherlock Holmes himself was never created by anybody.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 2837
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Hereandnow »

Consul:
When I think of or imagine Darth Vader, I have a certain idea or image of him in my mind, but the object of my thought or imagination isn't any Darth-Vader-idea or -image but Darth Vader himself, who is neither a mental idea nor a mental image. The proper name "Darth Vader" does not refer to any idea or image of Darth Vader but to Darth Vader himself. The name of my/our Darth-Vader-idea isn't "Darth Vader" but "my/our Darth-Vader-idea". Generally, (mental or physical) representations of fictional persons or objects don't themselves have the name of who or what they represent.
I've seen this before, somewhere reading....... Anyway, what it does, in giving Darth Vader, the "object of my thought or imagination," an identity that is beyond mere idea or image, is to take fiction AS real, which is what we do all the time. Larry is my friend, and when I talk about him, I certainly do have an idea, an image "in" mind as a background of familiarity and anticipation. But my reference to Larry is not a reference to any of this. It is a reference to Larry. Even if Larry had died last year, it would still be a reference to Larry.

This is the way referencing goes when we think of anyone, fictional or otherwise. It is only when we remove ourselves from referencing and into analysis that the differences arise between fiction and nonfiction.

I think this is the way this goes.
Gertie
Posts: 2181
Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Gertie »

Consul wrote: December 19th, 2017, 2:30 pm
Gertie wrote: December 18th, 2017, 2:44 pm(1) 'Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character' doesn't need the tautological clarification 'according to the fiction of...', hence people instead say things like 'created by Arthur Conan Doyle'.
If fictional characters don't exist/are unreal—which I think is the case—, they cannot have been created, since to create something is to bring it into existence/reality. What Doyle really created are certain textual representations of Sherlock Holmes and thereby a common cultural idea or concept of him; but Sherlock Holmes himself was never created by anybody.
You'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.
Littlemoon
Posts: 51
Joined: December 13th, 2017, 2:05 pm

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Littlemoon »

Fictional characters are just that, fictional. Its a smash of a ton of personalities into one. Of course we have to base these fictional characters from real people, although doesn't mean they will share the same traits.
But since someone said "created", does this mean then we were created by something bigger?
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Are fictional characters real?

Post by Consul »

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.
The 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.

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!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021