Our Fascination with Fiction

Building on our fundamental ability for abstract reasoning, we find value in fictional narratives. Rather than dismissing these tales as mere fabrications, we often see them as sources of entertainment and insight. The remarkable aspect is how deeply we connect with these narratives. We may recognize a story as fictional, yet the emotions it evokes are real—anger, sadness, joy—demonstrating the brain's unique capacity to compartmentalize our responses.

Consider the excitement surrounding franchises like Harry Potter, Star Wars, or Marvel. Fans are passionate about these stories, expressing joy or frustration based on how well the narratives resonate with their expectations. Similarly, the profound works of authors like Leo Tolstoy, George Orwell, and J.D. Salinger evoke strong emotional reactions, despite our awareness that their plots are entirely fabricated.

Why do we invest so much in these fictional tales? What drives our emotional engagement with these known falsehoods? Perhaps it's because we perceive fiction as a subset of the broader discourse of nonfiction. Generally, we assume that our communications are truthful, and that fiction serves merely as a distraction from the greater reality of human discourse.

The Overlap of Fiction and Nonfiction

However, can we truly trust that our faith in nonfiction isn't just another form of self-deception? We may suspend our disbelief when we encounter fiction, but do we not also overlook certain truths when interpreting nonfiction? The difference may lie in the fact that our skepticism regarding nonfiction is often less apparent, requiring deeper philosophical inquiry to uncover its questionable nature.

Every time we communicate, we use words that denote concepts. These concepts simplify reality, often misrepresenting it. Additionally, they are infused with subjective meanings shaped by our perspectives. Most concepts in everyday language serve practical purposes, guiding us based on their relevance to our experiences.

To illustrate, the term "cat" embodies not just a biological classification but also our cultural understanding of what it means to interact with this species. Our understanding of cats as pets reflects our interests, yet this interpretation is inherently subjective, highlighting the blurry line between domesticated and wild animals.

The Pragmatic Nature of Language and Knowledge

Even in fields like physics or mathematics, where language is more precise, the concepts remain pragmatic. The ultimate goal of communication, measurement, or theorizing is to utilize knowledge for specific ends. Just as a hammer is designed to drive nails, scientific methods aim to transcend the biases rooted in human nature.

Despite our attempts to achieve objectivity, the irony remains that when we strive for neutrality, we often suppress our emotions rather than our beliefs. With fiction, we play along, but with nonfiction, we inadvertently project our emotions onto a seemingly indifferent reality.

This raises the question: can we envision an entirely objective statement, one that reflects the nonhuman world? The philosopher Immanuel Kant referred to such a notion as "noumenal," emphasizing that it pertains strictly to things themselves, independent of our perception.

Our relationship with the facts of nature is inherently subjective, shaped by our biases and the institutions we create. Even statements claiming objectivity are, at their core, human constructs. The objective reality is indifferent to our interpretations, and we, as life-driven beings, engage with these facts in a manner that is often self-serving.

The Spectrum of Fictions

As we delve deeper into complex abstractions, we discover that these scientific frameworks often render our intuitive conceptions as fictional. If scientific realities diverge significantly from our intuitive understanding, the latter can seem deceptively simplistic.

In contrast to our prehistoric ancestors, who trusted their instincts, we now recognize that appearances can be misleading. We’ve come to understand the complexities of the universe—fermions, bosons, black holes—making our previous intuitions feel naïve.

Yet, even as we engage with nonfiction, we often overlook the philosophical implications of our human-centric views. The distinction between fiction and nonfiction may not be as clear-cut as we assume, as both genres rely on symbols that attempt to convey what we consider truth.

Philosophical Truth as Storytelling

So, what is the essence of philosophical truth? Is there a form of nonfiction, or are we merely weaving narratives? From a pragmatic standpoint, storytelling is our primary means of grappling with existence. Our simplified mental constructs and linguistic labels create a web of understanding, akin to spiders weaving their webs.

Philosophical inquiry challenges our conventional thoughts, seeking a more informed perspective. Truth, in this context, represents a relationship between symbols and facts. However, even the most refined representations are ultimately interpretations that reflect our limitations.

The only genuine connection between symbols and facts lies in the capacity of symbols to empower their users. If our interpretations enable us to engage with reality effectively, we can be said to be mapping it rather than merely expressing confusion.

In summary, while fictions entertain us and scientific theories provide tools, philosophical perspectives inspire us to persist amid life's complexities. The ideal observer, transcending human limitations, might focus on constructing meaningful narratives that do not entirely deceive but rather illuminate our understanding of the world.