Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Here's an idea: Fictional objects "EXIST" and Harry Potter can show us how.
So last week we talked about fictional objects. And you don't need to watch last week's episode
to understand this one, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. We talked about
The London in War of the Worlds, Alien Invaders, Tom Cruise the Dock Worker and Orson Welle's
"broadcast" of an alien invasion on Grover's Mills New Jersey. And how all of those things
qualify as fictional objects or entities.
We also talked about what those things, might BE, beyond the umbrella term of fictional entities.
The creation of someone's mind, objects and people in other possible worlds, things that-regardless
of their existence-have their own properties...
And it's that last bit, about existence, that we're gonna talk more about.
For the sake of argument last week I said that because fictional objects have properties ,
that qualifies as a KIND of existence.
Like. Here's Harry Potter. I can point at him or when I say Harry Potter there's a
part of your brain, probably, that shows you Daniel Radcliffe or the books or your own special
mental image of Nerdy Glasses McBoltscar.
BBUUUUUTTTTT real talk! Let's shed some light on whether or not THAT really qualifies as "existence"... Lumos!
Sort of like in our "Is Math Real?" episode, this question seems binary. And generally,
there ARE fictional realists, those saying
that fictional entities have an EXISTENCE somewhere--
and fictional anti-realists, who say that all of your favorite characters and places are about as
real as wizarding itself, literally.
Now, there are more ways to arrive at either of these positions than we'd EVER have time for, so
I'll put a reading list in the doobly-doo if you wanna do some diggin'.
But the basis of many anti-realist positions says that when we claim Harry Potter
exists... when we use the name "Harry Potter" to reference one particular young man--
we are doing something which, logically, is either impossible or just simply untrue. We are
referencing something without an actual referent, or saying something that is distinctly false.
To say, for instance, "Voldemort then turned his wand on Harry...", what we are
actually saying is something along the lines of:
"A-specific-wizard-who-we-all-generally-understand-has-a- name-that-is-not-normally-spoken turned his
magic-casting-implement onto another-specific-wizard-who-we-all-generally-understand-has-a-lightning-bolt-scar-on-his-forehead..."
But in our world, being what it is--free of both magic and wizards-- the three
elements of that sentence--the 2 wizards and the 1 magical object--have no ACTUAL referent.
Sure there is a sense of what we're talking about, there's the idea "wizards" and the very
well described enmity between these two particular wizards
--but as far as denoting a thing which is verifiable outside of it's own fictional setting--there's
zilch, except for us talking about it. Which'll become very important in a minute.
But basically: No wizard can ever point a magic thingy at another wizard because none of that
stuff exists.
Philosopher Saul Kripke boils this down one way by saying "the name ... doesn't really
have any referent, it has a pretended referent."... "The propositions that occur
in the story ... are not genuine propositions saying something about some particular person;
they are merely pretended propositions."
However, at least as far as Kripke is concerned, this doesn't really put the basilisk fang through
the heart of "existence", rather it describes how, or really *to what degree*, fictional
things exist, independent of the truth of their reference.
To look at it another way: when wondering about the existence of Hogwarts, Harry, Hermione
or Hedwig are we asking if there is a physical, actual person whose properties
exactly or sufficiently match those of the boy from the story,
...or are we asking, "Is there a concept, an entity of some kind, somewhere, that we all
might generally agree "is" Harry Potter, regardless of its physical presence?
Some fictional realists say that fictional entities exist not *physically* but only insofar
as they are the concern of actual people, most potently their creator.
Kripke, again, says "The fictional character can be regarded as an abstract entity that
exists in virtue of the activities of human beings, in the same way that nations are abstract entities
that exist in virtue of the activities of human beings and their interrelations."
Other realists, very much related to Meinong from last week go even farther,
and say that simply discussing things like Rubeus Hagrid and a tree which really likes
to wallop things is to commit oneself, at least partially, to their existence.
They respond to the "empty reference" complaint from earlier by claiming that when we say saomething
like "at the very center of the table, sat Professor Dumbledore,
his sweeping hair and beard shining in the moonlight...."
it is implied that what we REALLY mean is "ACCORDING TO THE FICTIONAL STORY HARRY POTTER,
at the very center of the table, sat Professor Dumbledore..."
Essentially: in talking about fictional entities, we always implicitly announce their pretendy-pretense,
and so are protected from ever REALLY claiming that these things are FOR REAL.
Others still say, much more unapologetically, that fictional entities, capital E, exist. We spent
most of last week talking about those ideas, so we won't dwell on them now except to say
the following:
We tend to think of things, especially people, that "exist" as having a singular referent,
one form in one place. Mike, Host of Idea Channel, is one person and has to be both
Mike AND the Host of Idea Channel.
If there was someone else who was EXACTLY like me in every way, or if I didn't
host Idea Channel, would I still be me? If I were a blonde guy who was a professional skateboarder
that didn't host Idea Channel, would that Mike Rugnetta still be me?
Most people would probably say "uuuhhh...nuhuh". And this is where some of fictionalism's stances
on existence get really fun. Because if Harry didn't cast spells, if didn't have a lightning bolt
scar--if he sold shoes at the mall, drove a Prius and had a Swedish accent--would he
still be Harry Potter?
When saying "Harry Potter exists", if that means we're choosing as an archetypal Harry
Potter that one particular gent created by JK Rowling --
And it doesn't have to mean that! it just... tends to --
then who is the Harry Potter from the Methods of Rationality, a rationalist parallel universe
HP fanfic where Harry is raised by Scientists and self identifies as such? Is he ALSO an
existing Harry Potter?
What about fan fics where Hermione is a dancer, Snape is Harry's Father, or where everyone
is a PONY.
It would seem as though the existence of these other Harry Potters complicates matters; when
we say "Harry Potter..."
--and if we think of all possible Potters as "existing"--
our dear hero, dear reader, and the names of all his friends, now refer simultaneously
to wizards and scientists and dancers, humans and ponies, male and female expressions of
themselves all out there ... somewhere in the fictional aether.
Do multiple, mutually-exclusive Harry Potters prove that the reference really is, like we
said at the beginning of the episode, essentially "empty"? If ANYTHING can be Harry Potter...
doesn't that make the reference useless?
Or! If we do claim that each is equally Harry Potter in its own context and pretense,
do we somehow diminish the importance of the beloved, nervous seeker who started it all? Maybe.
Or maybe it's up to us to manage all those possible worlds, to sort out each
reference and context and pretense for each community we inhabit, for every Harry Potter there is.
... all of which exist just as much as the last, even if that fact makes it feel
as though someone has cast CONFUNDO right between your eyes.
What do you guys think? Do fictional entities exist?
Does Harry Potter exist? And if so, how? Let us know in the comments annnd
Subscribe-o! Subscribus! Subscribator-Sorry I'm really new at this dark arts stuff.
Idea Channel takes place in a possible world
where you can teleport, but only about a foot and a half.
Let's see what you guys had to say about fictional objects.
First and foremost, Ali Leonard from Philosophy Tube let us know some of the things
that we got wrong by omission, and some of the stuff that was unclear.
We got the cause and effect of modal realism wrong and David Lewis is someone who I would have loved to talk more about.
As the show grows and we start talking about more stuff that
I don't have ready expertise in, we're gonna get some
things wrong. We're always gonna try to be right but it is great that you guys reach out and
let us know when we get things wrong. It is a huge honor always to have someone who is smarter
than you spend their time telling you how you got things wrong.
So...thanks! Also Ali how am I supposed to pronounce
Surrey? Sorrey? Surrey? Sry? Surry!
Relatedly Tyler Quiring and
a couple other people pointed out that the outrage surrounding the War of the
Worlds radio broadcast was itself a fiction which is another thing that we
would have loved to have spent whole minutes on.
Links in the doobly-do because that stuff is super interesting too.
Patrick Daly writes a really great comment about the concept of piggybacking used in video game design
which uses people's pre-formed ideas and
assumptions about the way the world works to allow them to get into the game and
understand it faster. I'd never heard of this. This is cool.
Dzejens writes a really insightful comment about the distinction between the
actual and the virtual and how fiction can sometimes be a lens
through which we view reality and yeah I have this experience, this is maybe gonna sound
really weird, but i can't be in certain neighborhoods in
downtown Manhattan without feeling like I'm in like a Jim Jarmusch film and that always
affects how I view those neighborhoods a lot.
srpilha writes a really great comment about the relationship between the existence of
fictional objects and language which is of course a hugely important part in the whole arrangement
and also knowing that we have a Wittgensteinian on duty is good information to have.
Kasper Loye whose last name I'm probably mispronouncing and
a bunch of other people brought up the Myst series of books and games and yeah I think
I always thought of Myst as a great example of some of
the underlying ideas of how fiction works you know books linking
between worlds and all kinds of things so yeah, I agree. Totally onboard.
Wednesday's Serial asks a really good question about the existence of a
possible world and popularity, that does a fictional
idea have to reach a certain level of popularity before it can be said to exist? It's a good question.
I wonder what you guys think about this.
refresh demon writes a comment about fiction and the
nature of reference and asks what I think is a really fun question about the
nature of fathomable things, that if, sort of like the round square
if it is something that we can describe but not really picture or have a clear sense of
does that thing then exist? Is it fiction? I don't know an
answer but I really like this question and think that
this is, this sort of gets to the heart of what a lot of the episode was about.
Thanks for writing, this was a great one.
This week's episode was brought to you by the hard work
of these unfathomable objects. We have a Facebook, an IRC, and a subreddit links in the
doobly-doo. And the Tweets of the Week come from Simon Boba who shares
with us a great Venn diagram about plot and story and the Pipsqueaks
who points us toward a tumblr which collects images
of plants from video games. It's weirdly hilarious and beautiful.
And as one final note, our good friends over at Minute Physics set us up with a
subtitle account so if you happen to speak a language that
Idea Channel is not already in, which as it turns out is most languages, you, if you are
of the mind, can translate it so that there are subtitles for people who
speak your language which is so exciting! I mean
it's exciting for me, I hope it's exciting for you. So if you want to do that, link in the doobly-doo
So for this week's record swap we actually have a special guest I'm very excited to introduce
Mr. Anthony Fantana from the Needle Drop the internet's busiest music nerd.
Mike: So what do you have for us to replace, Mr. Fantana? Anthony: David Bowie
Mike: Yes! Anthony: Space Oddity. Mike: Not just any David Bowie.
Mike: Look at this hair! It's so good! And I mean, also the record and the music. Anthony: Yeah.
So did you have, you know, do you have a place that would like to
put it or.. yeah? All right. So the Talking Heads: goodbye
Imma let you do the honors.
Anthony: Goodbye Talking Heads, hello David Bowie.
Mike: And thank you Anthony! Anthony: Thank you!