I think, therefore I am (a fictional character)
In fiction, when the author ascribes something to character, then it means it is true that that character has that property. If JK Rowling says Harry Potter wears glasses, then it's true that Harry Potter wears glasses. You can ascribe anything to a fictional character, including thinking. JK Rowling tells us that Harry potter thought, so we know that Harry Potter thought.
Here's the part that puzzles me. Descartes taught us that, "I think, therefore I am". And this is supposed to show that he knows that he exist without absolute certainty. The problem is, merely existing tells us nothing interesting about the nature of your existence. Harry Potter can also say, "I think therefore I am". And when he does that, Harry Potter knows he exists! But harry potter is also a fictional character. When you say, "I think, therefore I am" you also know you exist. However, how can you be absolutely certain your not also a fictional character?
Here's the part that puzzles me. Descartes taught us that, "I think, therefore I am". And this is supposed to show that he knows that he exist without absolute certainty. The problem is, merely existing tells us nothing interesting about the nature of your existence. Harry Potter can also say, "I think therefore I am". And when he does that, Harry Potter knows he exists! But harry potter is also a fictional character. When you say, "I think, therefore I am" you also know you exist. However, how can you be absolutely certain your not also a fictional character?
Comments (25)
Ideas exist and are just as real as anything else. They are real and exist because they have causal influence. Ideas cause things to happen. Ideas are also the effects of other causes. The idea of Harry Potter was caused by JK Rowling and in turn has caused many new effects in the world, like the shaping of non-living objects as a medium for communicating the idea of Harry Potter to other minds.
I think, therefore, in a way, I AM...
...but I truly have no inkling of what I am.
Am I a part of some greater whole...or is EVERYTHING just this thing I call "me?"
Solipsism gets bad-mouthed in damn near every philosophical discussion in which it is raised, but what else is there?
Lots?
Perhaps, but unlike "self' there is no verification of anything else except by this thing I call "me."
Existence is a very mysterious thing.
You meant "with absolute certainly" right?
Quoting Purple Pond
You can't be. However, absolute certainty is not a requirement for belief. Can you be absolutely certain of your birthday? Of course not. You could have been born the day after or the day before, and your parents, along with those responsible for your birth certificate, could have lied to you. But even without this absolute certainty, you probably do believe you were born on the day your parents told you (and your birth certificate says) you were born.
I agree with this. However, as unenlightened pointed out, do you think it's reasonable to say fictional characters can do things? Can it be said that Harry Potter thinks, does magic, goes to school, etc.? And if so, what does it mean when we say "Harry Potter thinks"? It certainly doesn't mean he thinks in the same way an actual person thinks, as he doesn't have the requisite physical brain necessary for thinking. Furthermore, he only "thinks" when someone tells him to think and what someone tells him to "think."
Harry Potter is a fictional character. As such, Harry Potter can only do fictional things - fictional thinking and magic-use, and goes to fictional schools.
If one wants to claim that Harry Potter thinks, then one is redefining what thinking is, and what "I think therefore, I am" means.
Is it really Harry Potter that is doing the thinking, or the one that thinks about Harry Potter? Harry Potter is just an idea. Do ideas think, or isnt it that ideas are the result of thinking?
No, ideas certainly don't think. Thinking requires autonomy. It involves the ability to process information about the world without someone telling you what information to process and how to process it. This is why robots can't be said to think, even if they are capable of doing complex mathematical problems in a fraction of the time humans can do them. Similar to robots, ideas lack autonomy and cannot be said to think.
I am not sure if the lack of autonomy is the only reason ideas can't be said to think, but I do think it is one of them.
With that said, I am not sure if it can be said that ideas can't do other things. Eating, doing magic, and killing wizards don't require the autonomy that thinking does. For that reason, it may be the case that statements like "Harry Potter did a spell" are true.
I don't. Fiction exists in the usual way, but "fictional" is rather a kind of nonexistence. Sheila Potter, Harry's older sister, has no existence whatsoever despite that I have just conjured her. And Harry Potter has no existence whatsoever despite the fact that Rowling conjured him. Existence-wise, Rowling's creation and mine are on a par, despite hers having more sales.
I disagree with this. If ideas exist, and Harry Potter is an idea, then Harry Potter exists. He certainly does not exist in the way I do -- as a person in the material world -- but he does exist in the same way any idea exists.
"Fictional" refers to the idea of nonexistence.
Quoting unenlightened
Which is to say that Sheila Potter is just another idea like Harry Potter that hasnt had as much of an effect as the idea of Harry Potter.
Reality varies in different universes of discourse. In the real world, Harry Potter does not think for he does not exist to begin with, however in his universe, he exists and therefore can think. Like how Austrian Philosopher Meinong arranged numerous, possible variables to paradigmatic prepositions.
Meinong arranged it in three different concentric prepositions. Absistence, Subsistence, and Existence.
Well, no. Fiction is realism in a different universe of discourse, wherein the paradigmatic properties of the particular discourse changes entirely.
This is a typical misuse of language by philosophers who are more interested in making word salad rather than getting at any truth.
What is a "different universe of discourse"? The discourse (telling H. Potter's tale) is in this universe and is about ideas (H. Potter is an idea in someone's head) in this universe.
Any other universe that has a causal relationship with our universe can be said to be part of the same reality - the multiverse.
English Archaeologist and Philosopher R.G Collingwood viewed these various Universes of discourse as a work of Art; he believed that our Aesthetic appreciation had something to do with their existences and how it mutually returns to us a semantic process. These separate existences do have a causal relationship with our reality by affecting our experiences, and subsequently our Self-Actualization. Collingwood then labelled this one-way path of causality as a form of Magic Art. Magic Art, which counterparts Amusement Art, prescribes us with our act of utility, rather than to distract us from our known metaphysical reality.
Differently, Magic Art instills our acts of utility, and use it for our known reality — like how Harry Potter teaches Hard-Work, Friendship, and determination. Meanwhile, Amusement Art is to act as a nuisance to our finite process of being in this metaphysical reality.
To our old pal Meinong and his Jungle, he separated indirect causality like fictional virtue and much remarkably, numbers to different paradigms outside existence. Instead, Meinong arranged them to subsistent and Absistent factors. Numbers, correct me if I am wrong, but are subsistent factors, for they are conceptual intuitions that are only processed in the human mind. Fiction, are absistent factors, for although they do not exist in our metaphysical reality, they exist in a particular universe of discourse.
Both Numbers and Fictional Virtue do, comprehend causality to our metaphysical reality.
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose though? Descartes found certainty in himself for the reason that he thinks, if he applies his skepticism into that, what's the point?
And in that certainty, he may or may not have been correct. There's no way for him to know for sure that thinking is being or that he is alive separately from other beings without those other beings. If he was the only human, where would his certainty go?
Certainty is absolute truth. I agree, Descartes is indubitably wrong when he claims he is certain about his existence. However, saying;
Quoting whollyrolling
worsens the already difficult pursuit of individual certainty. In addition, evaluating something that is meant to describe your essence does not solve the existence of fictional characters, at least I think so.
Numbers are processed by computers and can be processed by other animals. A number is an arbitrary symbol that refers to the sum of members in a category. This is what the symbols mean for humans because that is what most humans have learned to associate these scribbles and sounds with. Other animals can see and hear these scribbles and sounds and learn to associate anything with them. Animals learn to go where they have found more abundant food in the past. Computers can be programmed to interpret numbers in incalculable ways. The CPU in your computer is a super-powered calculator.
The prerequisites for processing numbers, or quantities, are senses (inputs) and a brain (information processor).
Using the term, "universe" the way you do is incoherent and more artful rather than accurate. I would say that Math (processing numbers) is a different subject than Language Arts (fiction), not a different "universe".
The rest of your post is just incoherent word salad.
What worsens the pursuit of certainty is faith in the unknown, or even worse--the unknowable.
Is that definition mutually exclusive to Numbers having a causality to our metaphysical reality? I am sorry, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to imply. There was no comparison to the system of numbers and fictional virtue as distinct 'universes', but only to convey that they have an interstice of causality towards our metaphysical reality. And by your definition, it appears that you elucidated the causality of numbers towards our known reality.
The 'universe' analogy, as you labelled incoherent, is not to exploit reality — and therefore make world salad. It is to acknowledge reality, for if this was to be incoherent; it would not be accepted in our contemporary society of philosophy.
It is quite ironic to deem my reflective opinions incoherent, all for the reason of misunderstanding it.
Who was indubitably wrong? You are contradicting yourself. How is "existing" and "being wrong" mutually exclusive? How would you know that someone else is wrong? What does it mean to be "wrong"?
Quoting SethRy
How do fictional characters come into existence?
What's true is that the author wrote the character to have that property.
Well,actually the only thing you can be sure exists is yourself. If your friend says," I think, therefore I am" , you cannot conclude that he exists! You can be sure you exist because you know you think. But you cant be sure that your friend thinks, even if he says so. So Harry Potter saying he thinks, does not prove it because you do not know that with certainty. Hence your existence is the only you can trust ( probably...).
Ah, mistaken for our original argument start to attack a different statement, cool.
Descartes was wrong to find certainty in his existence only for the reason of his capability to think. Stop forcing comparisons to two things that I did not deem similar.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Proof you don't understand. Fictional characters do exist, but in a way that they are absistent beings. You argued that things with a form of causality to our metaphysical reality do exists. Fictional things teach us how to live life, in very indirect forms of causality. If anyone's contradicting themselves, that's you.
Furthermore, let's return to our initial argument. Quoting Harry Hindu
Which I think is absurd because there was no comparison made with these two, as you label, 'universes'. It is to arrange, the differences of numbers and fictional characters - their limitations to metaphysical existence. As I mentioned, it is not to exploit reality; but to acknowledge existence in sorts where metaphysical existence is not a prerequisite.
Calling it incoherent without understanding it is ironic.