fiction and reality

**H.r.E.** · August 08, 2009, 07:48 AM

so i do recently read a book called sofies world - its about a girl which gets letters from an anonymous philosoph which teaches her about philosophy and such but suddenly they appear to be only written charachters in a book written by the father of a girl (which gets this book as a birthday present)

and therefore i wanted to hear your opinions about the following : what makes charachters in a book unreal (opposing to the real persons which are alive) ? i mean someone imaginated them and wrote a book about them and created his on little world , and how does one see the electrical impulses (just let it get simplified : if you look at the impulses you could , for instance , see this figures - what would make them unreal ? despite the fact theyre not out of flesh and bones) its just like the author of the book is some god which lets the figures do whatever he wants and theyre not aware of what happens to be outside the book

and just for instance : im not some kind of mental instabel person and no jerk either

**Daeger** · August 08, 2009, 10:10 AM

They're unreal because they aren't real. Simple.

**H.r.E.** · August 08, 2009, 11:01 AM

what kind of explanation should that be ?

**Lord of Lost Socks** · August 08, 2009, 11:47 AM

Usually their unreal because people are dull, less creative, and much more simple than characters in books.
But at the same time they can sometimes suprprise you.
In books, people have personalities that differ way more than what they do in real life.

To quote Yahtzee "People are

. You're

, I'm

, the world is

. And if you're sitting there thinking 'Yes it's true, everyone is

except me'. Then you're a double bacon

with large fries, mr.

".

No I don't hate humanity

People are people(=

) and that's why the world works(mostly).
No, srsly, I don't hate people.

**Taxandrius** · August 08, 2009, 12:04 PM

indeed, it's hard to find any personage not based on someone real
mostly it are friends or realtives of the writer, though the writer himself sometimes doesn't use those characters deliberately.

**Holden McGroin** · August 08, 2009, 01:06 PM

Of course their real (only in your head tough)

Usually their unreal because people are dull, less creative, and much more simple than characters in books.
But at the same time they can sometimes suprprise you.
In books, people have personalities that differ way more than what they do in real life.

To quote Yahtzee "People are

. You're

, I'm

, the world is

. And if you're sitting there thinking 'Yes it's true, everyone is

except me'. Then you're a double bacon

with large fries, mr.

".

No I don't hate humanity

People are people(=

) and that's why the world works(mostly).
No, srsly, I don't hate people.

I think you hate people...

**Manoflooks** · August 08, 2009, 01:46 PM

I just finished that book too! Great book...

I thought the same questions, but I concluded that they arent real because(unlike the book) things cant happen that we don't talk about-for example, if I write a book that says absolutely nothing about detroit, nothing will happen in detroit. Of course, if that is wrong, and we simply dont know, they must exist. And this theory also brings in the (realism? I forget...) "if a tree falls in a forest and theres nobody around, does it make a sounds?" debate.

**Lord of Lost Socks** · August 08, 2009, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by Holden McGroin

I think you hate people...

No. No I don't. I'm just incredibly self-aware.

**Tigrul** · August 08, 2009, 02:34 PM

That is a very interesting problem you pose, although I think it will be a more adequate problem once we have developed very complex AI algorithms, which, imo, would be closer to sentient life than characters in a book.
As for a solution, unfortunately I have none.

**Hippolord** · August 08, 2009, 04:36 PM

You are a person...becuase it's as simple as that...

You are...you can be...your are persay...a being.

You have been indowed with thought...the awareness of self...you have been indowed wiht a mind, the awareness of thought...and some say you have been indowed with a soul...the awareness of the mind.

The people in these books, are the creation of a being whom wishes to surplant his own mind and being, and gift it unto his own creations, the ultimate desire of a being whom was created in such a way.

So in the end, the answer is simple, the people within books are real, as far as you are concerened, for you have endowed them within the infinite space and capabilities of oyu mind, wiht the ability to be. And thusly they are yours, to whatever extent you chose it to be.

The people in books are real...because you have ordained it to be so.

**edswarnok** · August 08, 2009, 06:32 PM

I think this belongs in the philosophy section but I'll answer as best as I can to what was written (english is probably not your first language is it?

). No matter how hard an author tries a character in a book can never reach a point in which they are real, the author will try to add emotional and physical imperfections to his characters to make us relate to them but they will never be real.

**H.r.E.** · August 09, 2009, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by edswarnok

I think this belongs in the philosophy section but I'll answer as best as I can to what was written (english is probably not your first language is it?

). No matter how hard an author tries a character in a book can never reach a point in which they are real, the author will try to add emotional and physical imperfections to his characters to make us relate to them but they will never be real.

actually im german

but thanks for answering guys

@manoflooks : i hope this gots a good ending , if not i`ll be very p*ssed

@alarim : well said

@the others : thanks for replaying

**Khora** · August 10, 2009, 05:16 AM

Does this not return us to the doubts raised by Heidegger, in that we cannot contemplate the perplexities of reality without first determining the nature of 'Being' as a prerequisite? The way in which 'real' has been contrasted with 'fiction' in the title, and indeed adopted by many of those who have replied to this discussion, assumes a type of binary opposition which transcends reality and enters the realm of the metaphysical (non-material) rather than physical (ethereal)? Can we not, therefore, view 'reality' as beyond the polarity and axioms of logocentrism and, rather, view it as encompassing both being and non-being in the type of receptacle (kὁρα [khora]) which Plato outlines in Timaeus?

**AdmiralSloop** · August 10, 2009, 08:12 AM

Is it not possible to say that a book is not real because you first have to read the words to create the impulses within your brain - in other words, the impulses are interchangeable between two people and not accesible by everyone. It's real in the sense that 'sense data' is real?

**H.r.E.** · August 11, 2009, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by AdmiralSloop

Is it not possible to say that a book is not real because you first have to read the words to create the impulses within your brain - in other words, the impulses are interchangeable between two people and not accesible by everyone. It's real in the sense that 'sense data' is real?

sort of - maybe

**senamic** · August 15, 2009, 09:02 AM

The idea of the unreal is a real idea, while any notion of reality is unreal. The concept of reality and unreality is a paradox, for neither can exist without the other, and while both contain elements of the other, they cannot co-exist on the same plane.