Can a Fictional Story Have a Connection to Reality?

[blü 2]

You just said that we should correspond to reality here, so you are saying that morality corresponds to reality.

"Morality" is an abstraction, a concept, derived from the concept of "good" and "bad" ways an individual can act. When someone acts in a particular way, and in a particular context, then the actor or others may judge that conduct to be "good" or "correct" or "moral".

Our actions are real, but the judgment of "good" or "correct" or "moral" must be provided by a human.

As I mentioned before, humans have an evolved component to their sense of "good" and "bad", and an acquired component as well. (To the evolved component we can add the conscience and our sense of empathy.)

 

[blü 2]

Is it correct or good to correspond with reality?

First, do you agree with those definitions of "morality", "truth" and "reality"? It seems to me important that we be on the same page.

Second, as the Bard said,

Hamlet: Denmark's a prison.
Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.
Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o' th' worst.
Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.
Hamlet: Why then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.
​

No act is "good" or "bad" except by the judgment of a human to that effect.

To put it another way, there is no objective morality.

Our evolved moral tendencies are as close as we get to it, which is not close enough. What's good for me and my tribe may be bad for you and your tribe. That's much of the basis of any war.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

I'd say that ─

"morality" is the human sense of what is "correct" or "good" in one's behavior to other people (in particular), but also to other living things, and to the world in general. We've evolved to have certain moral tendencies ─ child nurture and protection, dislike of the one who harms, like of fairness and reciprocity, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a sense of self-worth through self-denial. The rest of our morality, covering mainly our relationships with others, is largely learnt from our upbringing, culture, education and experience.

I'd also say that "truth" is a quality of statements, and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the "correspondence" definition).

And that "reality" aka "objective reality" is the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses.

If you disagree, please state your own definitions, so that wires don't get crossed.

As I’ve mentioned, I don’t share this view of a static, “objective” reality, stripped of the moral domain and unfiltered by human consciousness. Further, as I’ve been demonstrating, I don’t think that anyone else really believes this either.

If someone agrees that the moral domain is apart of reality — that we should strive to be in accordance with reality — then they are denying this supposed static, “objective” reality.

 

[blü 2]

As I’ve mentioned, I don’t share this view of a static, “objective” reality, stripped of the moral domain and unfiltered by human consciousness. Further, as I’ve been demonstrating, I don’t think that anyone else really believes this either.

Indeed there's no awareness of reality, the world external to the self, except through the awareness of a living thing, which for this discussion we can limit to humans. (In future we may have machines that are aware, but they'll have such morality, if any, as we build into them.)

If someone agrees that the moral domain is apart of reality — that we should strive to be in accordance with reality — then they are denying this supposed static, “objective” reality.

I don't really understand how we could strive "to be in accordance with (external) reality". We're as we are, inside our heads, placed in space and circumstance by our real surroundings, and reacting to what we find. And (relevant disorders of the brain aside) our morality, evolved and acquired, is in there with us.

Just as Hamlet said.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

Indeed there's no awareness of reality, the world external to the self, except through the awareness of a living thing, which for this discussion we can limit to humans. (In future we may have machines that are aware, but they'll have such morality, if any, as we build into them.)
I don't really understand how we could strive "to be in accordance with (external) reality". We're as we are, inside our heads, placed in space and circumstance by our real surroundings, and reacting to what we find. And (relevant disorders of the brain aside) our morality, evolved and acquired, is in there with us.

Just as Hamlet said.

It’s not true or useful to associate reality with external. Reality is something we become more or less aligned with, or more or less in accordance with.

Unless you don’t agree that it’s better to be in alignment with reality. What does reality check mean to you? Anything?

 

[Trailblazer]

Can a fictional story with a setting outside of world history and geography have a connection to reality?

Do you mean a story like the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?
I believe it is fictional but it is connected to spiritual reality.

 

[viole]

If your answer is yes, then by what means do fictional stories connect to reality?

Of course. Assuming I understand what you mean with reality. Many fictional movies are set into a reliable historical context.

But you do not even need that accordance with historical reality, to have reality affected.

For instance, once I met a Jediist. It is a new religion based on Star Wars. For sure, that affects his reality, and the reality around him. His wife, for instance, is not happy about that.

Can a fictional story contain wisdom?

Yes. Why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Yes, real = correspond with reality.

And reality = that which is real.

Right?

Ciao

- viole

 

[blü 2]

It’s not true or useful to associate reality with external.

Then we agree to disagree.

Since you don't like reference to external reality, what's your test for whether a statement is true or not?

What does reality check mean to you? Anything?

It means comparing your understandings with external reality to see how they compare. An accurate report of a real (ie existing externally) state of affairs is a "fact", and as the saying implies, in the event of difference, the facts win.

 

[wellwisher]

If your answer is yes, then by what means do fictional stories connect to reality?

If your answer is no, then my next question is:
Can a fictional story contain wisdom?

If you ever read classical literature, the names and places used by the authors of classic fiction, may or may not be real, but the trials and tribulations of human nature, appear timeless. One can relate to these old stories based on common human propensities that still exist today.

The reason for this is the operating system of the brain is quite old and this is engrained on our human DNA. These genes do not change as quickly as the outward styles and fads of culture. If an author can appeal to this internal nature of human, that work can become timeless.

In historical fiction, we can identify and isolate the time in history via the authors bringing up of relevant and proven historical details; War and Peace. Once the story is less about the unique time in history and becomes more human, the timeless nature of the human brain's operating system makes that part relevant to all times. The nature of greed and generosity do not change.

Books like the Bible, and the story of Jesus, although not easily proven by science based, on every historical detail, nevertheless also speaks to the deepest parts of the brain; our timeless human nature. This appeal allows these stories too linger in time and still be relevant to our modern times.

The technology, clothes even languages change with time to reflect specific times and places in history, but human nature, such as falling in love, takes one out of time and space, to an eternal inner place, common to even today.

I have often asked myself, if the Bible stories are fictional, as is claimed by atheists, how did they linger so long in time and also become the motivation force that altered the course of history?

The answer appear to be less about the outward fads of a given time and place, and more about the timeless nature of the human soul. This makes it fresh for each generation, so it became relevant to that time as the outward fads of history come and go. Science can quantify the outward stuff; names and places, but it is still lacking when t comes to the inner things of our brain's operating system, that allow us to exist out of time and space.

Science demands we approach reality from the outside with our senses. This is not the correct method needed to define those inner things, that cannot be seen with the eyes, but which can be felt within the heart; timeless human nature.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That’s not a question for me but for someone with a narrow and static view of reality. For me, it’s not an issue that someone can be more or less in accordance with reality. And it’s not an issue for me that the moral domain plays a dominant role within reality.

So, it is a question you can't answer?

So you think of the moral domain as some sort of physical substance or property?

 

[Polymath257]

You just said correspondence with reality is better. Better = more moral, no?

No, the implication is the other way around. Moral implies better (for people). Truth implies better (for decisions).

These are not equalities, they are implications.

 

[Polymath257]

Every story is real, fictional or not. A lot of you rationalists don’t know as much as you think you do. As shown in this thread.

Which aspect is 'real'? The characters in the story are not real. The words and ideas are real. To be fictional means it does not correspond, in some way, with reality. Something about it is not real.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay. What are the genres other than sacred history do you get in the Bible?

Please explain. Thank you very much.

What does the phrase 'sacred history' mean other than 'tribal propaganda'?

 

[Polymath257]

Further, since morality corresponds to reality, what is most real is most moral, and what is most moral is most real.

That seems to me to be clearly false.

For example, the sun is a star. That is a truth that has no moral component. It is real but amoral.

A fictional story with made up characters in a made up setting that contains more moral truth is more true than a story based on historical events.

And I see that as wrong as well. A 'moral truth' is simply something you want to pattern your life with. it is an *opinion* and not something in reality outside of our brains.

The story based on historical events is the real one (assuming it tell the events correctly and accurately).

A fable is not true.

 

[Polymath257]

I already said morality, truth, and reality are each a hierarchy. The idea that morality evolves is a problem for people like you who have a limited, static view of reality. It’s no issue for me.

Morality doesn't exist outside of human desires and goals.

Reality does. Truth is a description of reality.

 

[Polymath257]

I’ll ask you:
Is corresponding with reality better? Should we strive to correspond to reality?

The term better should always be followed by 'to whom'. or 'in what way' So, is correspondence to reality better for people who want to make good decisions? Yes. is it better is you want to find true things? yes.

But, if you only want happiness in the short term, a fantasy may accomplish that.

The term 'should' is a moral judgement. It depends on our desires and goals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That seems to me to be clearly false.

For example, the sun is a star. That is a truth that has no moral component. It is real but amoral.



And I see that as wrong as well. A 'moral truth' is simply something you want to pattern your life with. it is an *opinion* and not something in reality outside of our brains.

The story based on historical events is the real one (assuming it tell the events correctly and accurately).

A fable is not true.

I wonder about the applications of such a philosophical view. If two stories discuss a history, but one is fictional and the other is based on evidence, following that line of thinking, the fictional story that discusses morality would be seen as the more truthful over the evidence-based story that does not. Then it is possible over time that people come to accept the history of the fictional story as real and disregard the history from the story that bases it on evidence. Thus a lie (fiction) would become the truth and reality would be cast aside. Clearly, not something I find moral.

 

[Polymath257]

You just said that we should correspond to reality here, so you are saying that morality corresponds to reality. Right?

No.

Morality is useful or not. It corresponds to our goals and desires, not necessarily to reality.

But, if you want to make good decisions, it is good for your ideas about the world to correspond to reality. Your ideas about morality and whether they are useful will depend on your society, for example.

 

[firedragon]

What does the phrase 'sacred history' mean other than 'tribal propaganda'?

You have already answered to yourself with an insult. Thats a fallacy of relevance. An appeal to ridicule. So, that does not deserve a decent response.