realise that fictional objects are independent of any existing work of fiction,

Hmm. That way madness lies. I hope you don't really believe that.

Ask any nine year old if it's possible to play Superman, Batman or any other fictional object, without faithfully enacting an extant story. If nine year olds realise that fictional objects are independent of any existing work of fiction, why do some members of this thread find the matter so difficult?

Do you seriously think that an author can not write an unwritten book that includes a fictional character from an earlier work? I sincerely hope that you dont believe that.

Yes, that happens once you start to slide down that Meinongian slippery slope. The only thing to do is keep off that slope in the first place.

It is strange, isn't it?

It is like they are confusing the representations of these fictional characters with the characters being represented.

Obviously some creative person had to think up (or imagine or form a mental image of) these characters in order to write a story about them. And others can take those same characters and put them in their stories.

Just to sum up:
there are three members claiming that fictional objects dont exist because they aren't concrete objects. .

However, these three maintain that numbers exist, regardless of the fact that they meet the criteria for non-existence met by fictional objects. Which position is "justified" by an obviously circular argument, illucid nonsense exhibit two.

What I think is that unless what would be a concrete object if it existed, exists concretely, it would not exist.

That's kind of true, but very misleading. What is true, and not misleading is the following:

Unicorns (e.g.) if they did exist, would be concrete objects.

Yes. Consider the following dialogue:

A: Why do you say that numbers exist but fictional characters do not?

B: Because numbers have properties (like being greater or lesser than other numbers), whereas fictional characters have no properties.

A: But why do you say that fictional characters have no properties? Doesn't Sherlock Holmes have the property of being a detective?

B: No, Sherlock Holmes has no properties, because he does not exist. Numbers do exist. That's the difference.

A: But why do you say that numbers exist but fictional characters do not?


Clearly, B's argument is circular. He is arguing that fictional characters are non-existent because they have no properties, and that they have no properties because they are non-existent. Similarly for numbers, but in the affirmative. His explanation of the difference between numbers and fictional characters begs the question.

If you assume from the outset that numbers exist, you can "prove" that they have properties. And if you assume from the outset that they have properties, you can "prove" that they exist. But you can make exactly the same assumptions and "proofs" for fictional characters. So why would you be wrong to do so? (No question-begging, please.)

One further question. Are ideas, and their contents, objects? If so, why cannot a fictional character be the content of an idea of a particular set of properties, and therefore exist? Such an idea could be shared between different people, and represented in literature, art and drama. It would then make sense to say that it is represented correctly or incorrectly, according to whether the representation corresponds properly with the established idea.

You are begging the question.

Maybe, but could you say why?

Santa and the character depicted as having the name Santa are not one in the same. We know the character exists, for it was created, and if in addition to that, Santa also existed, then at least two different things exist.

You are needlessly multiplying entities. Santa is the character depicted in a work of fiction.

As best as I can work out, what you mean to claim is that the story of Santa exists or the picture of Santa exists.

Are you changing your position? You have maintained (I thought) that Santa was actually neither of those but rather the (immediate) product of imagination. In a sense, a character in fiction is a product of the imagination, but it comes further down the line. According to our earlier discussion, Santa is created prior to the creation of the work of fiction.

I don't think I am.

A fictional character is an imaginary person represented in a work of fiction.

Isn't that consistent with my response?

I don't need to forbid it, for it's impossible for people to refer to the things they have imagined (if what they have imagined does not exist)!

You can talk about that which you have imagined (not to imply that what you have imagined exists--as language seems to suggest), but if what you have imagined does not exist (which I think is ordinarily a pretty good assumption), it cannot be referred to, pointed to, or touched, for it doesn't exist.

None of this is to imply that we cannot refer to abstract objects just because we can't point to or touch them.

If someone holds the position that an imaginary (or fictional) object can exist, they aren't going to accept your first premise for that is precisely the point of disagreement.

---------- Post added 04-28-2010 at 06:52 AM ----------



.

I don't need to forbid it, for it's impossible for people to refer to the things they have imagined (if what they have imagined does not exist)!