Paradox of fiction
Paradox of fiction
In short, the paradox of fiction is about how people respond emotionally to fiction while, at the same time, requiring truth (non-fiction) for emotional investment.
P1: If emotions are evoked by fiction then the subject must believe the fiction to be true
P2: The subject doesn't believe fiction to be true
P3: Fiction (movies, stories, plays, etc. - not real) evokes emotions in the subject
So,
C: Fiction shouldn't evoke emotions in the subject (from P1 and P2 - modus tollens)
But C contradicts P3.
[B]The proposed solutions to the paradox:[/b]
1) Thought theory: Deny P1. Genuine emotions can be experienced through fiction.
2) Realist/illusion theory: Deny P2 - fiction is true/real
3) Pretend/simulation theory: Deny P3 - the emotions experienced through fiction are less real than if it were non-fiction.
I ask this question because I was talking to this other person about happiness and s/he said happiness isn't linked to truth. This could be understood in two ways. First, truth isn't obliged to happiness and vice versa. Second, there is no requirement for truth in our happiness.
It's the second interpretation that bothers me. I think, also everybody I guess, that to be happy/sad about something, say x, x has to be real/true. A hint to this is provided by the frequent question, ''Really?'' that follows any exceptional event e.g. winning the lottery or an olympic event. Before we invest ourselves, we always confirm the truth.
Given this is so, we can eliminate solution 1 for the paradox.
Solution 2 is a contradiction in itself - To say ''fiction is real''. So, we can eliminate it too.
We're left with solution 3. This seems to be the only reasonable solution - fiction-evoked emotions are not that intense as is when it's real. It also agrees with my view on genuine happiness (truth based) outlined above.
However...
A certain point that needs to be considered is that our emotions regarding something, say z, aren't determined by the truth value of z. Rather it's the particular arrangement of people, things, events that trigger emotion. What I mean is the arrangement in Rome and Juliet that evokes sadness is the futility of their love. The truth and falsity of this particular arrangement is of secondary, if at all it's relevant, importance to our emotions. People verify an event only to decide whether they should continue their emotional response to that particular event. The emotion has already been evoked.
Looking at it this way, the fiction paradox ignores this simple fact. Emotions are not about truth and falsity - something the paradox depends on. Emotions are about arrangements of people, things, events, etc.
Your comments?
In short, the paradox of fiction is about how people respond emotionally to fiction while, at the same time, requiring truth (non-fiction) for emotional investment.
P1: If emotions are evoked by fiction then the subject must believe the fiction to be true
P2: The subject doesn't believe fiction to be true
P3: Fiction (movies, stories, plays, etc. - not real) evokes emotions in the subject
So,
C: Fiction shouldn't evoke emotions in the subject (from P1 and P2 - modus tollens)
But C contradicts P3.
[B]The proposed solutions to the paradox:[/b]
1) Thought theory: Deny P1. Genuine emotions can be experienced through fiction.
2) Realist/illusion theory: Deny P2 - fiction is true/real
3) Pretend/simulation theory: Deny P3 - the emotions experienced through fiction are less real than if it were non-fiction.
I ask this question because I was talking to this other person about happiness and s/he said happiness isn't linked to truth. This could be understood in two ways. First, truth isn't obliged to happiness and vice versa. Second, there is no requirement for truth in our happiness.
It's the second interpretation that bothers me. I think, also everybody I guess, that to be happy/sad about something, say x, x has to be real/true. A hint to this is provided by the frequent question, ''Really?'' that follows any exceptional event e.g. winning the lottery or an olympic event. Before we invest ourselves, we always confirm the truth.
Given this is so, we can eliminate solution 1 for the paradox.
Solution 2 is a contradiction in itself - To say ''fiction is real''. So, we can eliminate it too.
We're left with solution 3. This seems to be the only reasonable solution - fiction-evoked emotions are not that intense as is when it's real. It also agrees with my view on genuine happiness (truth based) outlined above.
However...
A certain point that needs to be considered is that our emotions regarding something, say z, aren't determined by the truth value of z. Rather it's the particular arrangement of people, things, events that trigger emotion. What I mean is the arrangement in Rome and Juliet that evokes sadness is the futility of their love. The truth and falsity of this particular arrangement is of secondary, if at all it's relevant, importance to our emotions. People verify an event only to decide whether they should continue their emotional response to that particular event. The emotion has already been evoked.
Looking at it this way, the fiction paradox ignores this simple fact. Emotions are not about truth and falsity - something the paradox depends on. Emotions are about arrangements of people, things, events, etc.
Your comments?
Comments (10)
YMMV
As for 'really?' - that seems to me to me more conversational filler, along the lines of 'you know', 'like' and 'you don't say' than about declaring a philosophical position.
That's what I think too. Our emotional responses are triggered by, loosely speaking, the permutation of people, objects and events. A person in a particular situation is funny and in another is sad, etc. The emotional response is to the given permutation.
Truth and falsity matter only to our decision to continue the emotion or not. So, the paradox, which depends on truth/fiction distinction, is ''solved''. What do you think?
One more thing...
Do you really think truth doesn't matter to our emotions? For instance, bad/good news is always met with skepticism at first. There's a need to confirm its truth value before a person decides whether or not to continue the emotional response to it.
Fiction, watching the movie had aesthetic effect...intense, empathetic, wondrous ambiguity, which along with the movie's fantastic audio/visual affects... it was a powerful experience. The 'truth' of a movie lies in its power to inspire us, to make itself into an unforgettable experience, one that changes the way we think about tools, machines and life. This is a thicker concept of truth.
In a good work of fiction we suspend our belief systems. The work's aesthetic activates our imagination hooking it up with the aesthetic narrative of someone else's belief system, which we experience as if it were our own.
I don't know. Can we play with the definition of truth like that? It's odd how the paradox depends on fixed meanings of truth and fiction and your solution tweaks them.
Quoting Cavacava
This is very close to my ''solution''. We respond to certain permutations of things. For instance, a man slipping on a banana peel is funny or a child dying is sad. The truth value of these permutations don't matter insofar as the evocation of emotions is concerned. However, it (truth value) helps us decide how long we feel the emotions.
To my mind truth is a kind of un-concealment (disclosure-alethea), expanding our determinate concepts ("fixed meanings"), as part of our ongoing process of trying to understand the world and our relationship to it. The work in a work of fiction conveys new meanings and expands the narratives/history that orientate/contextualize us in our world. The work can accomplish this by virtue of its aesthetic affect. A work of fiction can pull us into its narrative. Our imagination is freely displaced by the fictive narrative. We can feel, experience what the fiction goes on about and in this process the work can un-conceal existential truths about the world and our relationship to it. The beauty in a work of art pushes past our "fixed meanings" as it enables the free play of our imagination and it, the creation of new concepts.
A Bee - Poem by Matsuo Basho
A bee
staggers out
of the peony.
(Y) Quoting BlueBanana
What do you mean?
If only true things can evoke emotions, the story can evoke emotions because its existence is true.
The aesthetic affect lies in how the poet's meaning is conveyed in a single 'comical' image, which in this poem is as much tied to nature as it is to man. The poem draws us into its narrative, but peonies are self fertile, and I suspect that Basho was aware of this, given the Japanese love of peonies. The bee is 'staggered' by the aesthetic of the peony, its shape, its color, and its aroma its beauty, the same as we are, but not quite the same, the difference lies in the word 'staggered'.
Well, it's not that truth (of existence) that has emotional relevance, is it?
Life is truly complex. We seem to think we know something when in fact it's just a part of the truth or worse just plain wrong.
Initially, I thought philosophy was about sharply focussed images but it seems even blurry pictures are of value. Do you think poetry is a pro or a con to philosophy?