Please tell me what you think.

er... is life worth living WITH fiction? i'd say it's worth living either way, but that's just personal choice. quite aware many people don't agree with me o.O

Yes... but it would suck.

*passes out pitchforks and torches to riot aginst Sumi's oppinion (because everyone knows you can't have their own oppinion now a days)*

^_^

as it is i feel that the answer to the question, put as simply as you've put it and without any further interpretation, is too simple for this to be a question you'd seriously ask. in other words, i figure i possibly missed some further meaning, but i'm not gonna try and guess what.

my answer, therefore, is 'yes'. ^_^

Life is always worth living....but I gotta second Lantis' answer and say it would suck some major balls.

I like all your answers so far, especially the straight forward, 'yes...but it would suck."

@Regal
Fiction seems to be one of the defining characteristics of being human, which provides an essential difference between us and the other animals. Therefore to live without fiction is to live so primal as to have much less of an imaginary and much more of a realistic sense of reality.

This perspective that I interpret and convey, however, can only be made with the help of a fictional interpretation of reality, so I would not be able to make this connection to ask the question in the first place, which means that to elaborate on this question is to function in accordance with the answer itself without having the ability to answer it from outside that perspective.

EDIT: To clarify, if one does not have fiction, one 'it would seem' would simply act in accordance with realistic motivation, and not imaginary ones. I maintain that "God's love", "someday I'm gonna rule this company", "everything happens for a reason", and "When gone am I, the last of the Jedi you will be" are all fictional motivations of human behavior because they are not sensed in the real world but maintainted in the imaginaiton of the mind and accordingly actually motivate human behavior.

What would be the point to live without them.

It would seem to be to live not as an imagined human but a realized ape.

But even 'ape' is a fictional designation, so I regress...

Is god a fictional being or is he? In our minds we think theres a god.. Would that be worth living without too?

If you're going into that much detail Bo you have to take the world in the context of the senses. By taking it that literally without fiction we only have what we can currently see, touch, taste, smell, and hear. And we can not perceive or infer anything from them...We can only take them as exactly what they are.

Because by what you're saying fiction is anything we cannot readily prove which means all inference and assumption as well as non sense motivation disappears. To take it that literally I do not think we can live without fiction and remain as true humans.


However taking the broader terms of fiction and non-fiction I do believe that humanity could retain a semblance of it's former self without fiction.

Will there still be holidays? O.o

With the most literal degree taken there wouldn't even be a culture or civilization KK....so no...no holidays.

I appreciate the additional comments.

@Kajakfaucon

I think that much of my concern with this question in the first place is that as a personal example, I grew up Catholic, trained in universal purpose based on mystery.

After I admitted that I no longer believed in the actual mystery of the trinity as professed by catechism, I found mystery in the nature of the 'true' 'historical' Jesus. I assumed that my universal purpose was properly adjusted. All the while, other examples of fiction reinforced this idea that there was more out there and fors some reason I thought that I would someday be able to obtain a different but ANALAGOUS reality (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Lord of the Rings).

But finally, I am hitting the point where even the search for the 'true' Jesus is just a historical pursuit of one man (which to ME is just any other ape like myself or anyone else-again I repeat as I have said elsewhere in the Mag that I consider us apes, it is not meant to be disrespectful and if anything, primarily respectful). The mysteries of the trinity or the bible (for any religion) to ME are evidently fiction akin to mythology.

My point is that there does not seem to be any great mystery to me anymore other than the actual existence of any type of infinity, the origin of physical matter, and the sensation of sentientness.

This trinity could be the universal mysteries that form the basis of my life as they are all types of non sense.

I just want to know if I can live without them because I don't think I will ever be able to actual realize their existence, which makes me think that they are fictional after all.

Unless they actually are the universal true non-fictional basis of mystery underlying all fiction.

@ Kajak - again, possibly i'm missing something here. because this doesn't make sense.

fiction, right? it's claims about a that are only true within the fictional framework of the world. facts are truth statements that accepted as true above and beyond this.

there are many facts. there are 601 magonians at this time. the GDP of the US is greater than the GDP of Chad.

fictions, meanwhile, are statements such as 'there are 4 otters dancing on my keyboard', and 'the GDP of Chad is greater than the GDP of the US.'

One could be stringent; claiming that facts have to be facts due to some higher truthmaker that, well, makes them true. empirical discovery is popular.

you could argue that without fiction the objects of empirical discovery, what you see and sense and measure with a compass and thermometer, are merely what you suspect to be the case.

ok. you do that. you still have facts, only now they're phraseable as 'it appears to me that such and such.'

it appears to the vast majority of people that the GDP of the US is greater than that of Chad. and so on.

my point is that i don't exactly see how a lack of fiction = a lack of civilisation &/or holidays. feel free to explain further. =D

... @Bo - there is one plus side to this. if the trinity doesn't exist, you're living without them already.

beyond that i can't think of much to say. ^^;

@Regal

I think that Kajakfaucon is going with my all encompassing definiton of ficiton (and not necessarily his own) but maybe I missunderstood what he or you said.

As for facts, yes, humans agree that there are such things as facts, but non-humans don't (as far as we humans know) because they are not thinking about things theoretically enough to achieve a designation 'fact' and what that theroretically means (to a human).

So in other words, I am pretty much at the point where it is no longer absurd that facts are fictional (as I am beginning to realize non-human perspectives) and as such I am concerned that what keeps people alive is staying away from this point.

EDIT: If the trinity that I address above does not exist, me being alive without them does not seem to be a plus side. It seems that I need mystery for life to be worth living and the less impressed I become with what is traditionally fictional, the more I rely on what seems reasonably mysterious, like the trinity I addressed above.

Due to our curious nature, I doubt that fiction could ever really be non-existant. It would be boring without it though.

Wow...how to answer all of this.

@ Regal & Bo - I was indeed going with Bo's extreme version on fiction. But I guess I should have provided a bit of a background to my way of thinking before I spurted that all out. To me, a person cannot be considered a true human without the ability for hopes, dreams, goals, perspectives and the like. I really don't care to explain that opinion currently as such would be going slightly in another direction. (but if someone really wants to know feel free to make a topic about it.)

As such, with Bo's extreme idea (not saying that it's actually your own just the would you were using as an example) I do not believe life is worth living without fiction because I think humanity would no longer truly exist.

@ Regal - Yes there are accepted facts within this universe but hell...If you go to the extreme of Bo's fiction then even acceptance is a fiction.

@ Bo - If you believe that there is truly no mystery except for the existence of a something more, then I think you need to look around a little more closely. Perhaps certain mysteries just don't appeal to you (which is entirely fine) but as I hold things there are infinite mysteries left in this world. For instance, to me, you are a mystery, as well as regal and every other person in the mag. I don't know if you're going for a more literal mystery or if more mundane mysteries bore you, but I must confess I see no lack of mystery in this life.

Again, I appreciate the feedback.

@Kajakfaucon

I agree about humanity being based on hopes, dreams, goals, perspectives, etc. but what I am saying is that I find little of these that seem to be my own. When you deconstruct out the things you've believed about god, people, life you hit a certain point where it all seems futile (absurdity) in which the only thing that seems to make life worth living is what makes you happy, but when what MAKES you happy (as opposed to what you think would make you happy) is believeing in something, there doesn't seem to be anything left to make you happy when you no longer believe that something actually exists (i.e that it is real and not imgainary and therefore that it is non-fictional).

The mystery of us all to me, while appreciated, seems to be a greater detail of our sensation of sentientness, the origin of our physical universe, and the infinite ways by which we may engage. In other words, I don't really find all of us that mysterious anymore because it is apparent to me that we are nothing more than what made us and moves us.

This reinforces my present belief that the only point in life is to dance to as much music with as many people during as many nighttimes as possible.

It is a point that I fear will not be enough because I've always known it was my purpose. (I'm not actually sure what I meant by that...I am just aMUSEing myself )

EDIT: I figured out what 'I' meant by that last statement. It means that I've always known that we are nothing more than animals and that fiction is the way we forget that.

Thanks. I feel better now.

Getting back to a more common defintion of 'fiction'. As the holidays approach, in particular Christmas, to what extent do you believe that fiction plays a role? Do you watch "A Year Without Santa Claus", Charlie Brown, and "It's a Wonderful Life" or do concentrate more on baking, building a snowman, and talking to family?

Bo, I had thought you were an atheist, but now I'm beginning to wonder if you're a Nihilist. This entire discussion sounds pretty Nihilistic to me.

At any rate, much of this is way over my head (as are much of your existentialist musings). For quite a while, I've been wanting to ask if you could break it all down and explain your philosophy. Speak as if you're talking to someone who has no idea what you're talking about.

I am a multi-modal skeptical agnostic.


SHORT ANSWER:
I do not see any objective basis for truth that must necessarily be maintained always for all time. This leads me to not really believe anything for certain but since I understand to some extent just about every belief system I have ever encountered, I don’t rule out any of them and function to some extent consistent with any or all of them from time to time depending on my (modal) mindset. A nihilist seems to maintain at least their own perspective of definition or their perspective in a way that goes past agnostic so I wouldn’t call myself a nihilist.

Thanks for asking.





PROPER ANSWER:
Agnostic-
Ultimately (and I emphasize ‘ultimately’) I recognize that I do not know anything for certain. I believe things but do not believe that I KNOW them ultimately.

Skeptical-
My main manner of approaching discourse is as a skeptic. I approach things as though nothing is NECESSARILY the case because I seem to have no certain evidence one way or the other, and this approach seems to be more useful (if not proper) than assuming that some things or anything is necessarily the case (i.e. it seems like the world exists, but why should I trust what seems to be the case? Should I just take this seeming for granted? Why? Says who? etc.). The skeptical aspect is a functional bridge between the agnostic and the multi-modal.

Multi-modal-
I believe that it is a dogmatic notion, that an individual must only have one mind, one belief system, one world view.

Belief systems are philosophical perspectives tied to a psychological mind.

Many people ‘understand’ other people’s belief system but don’t maintain it themselves. An atheist may ‘understand’ Christianity philosophically but not have the psychological condition known as ‘faith’. A Christian may understand science philosophically but no have the same psychologically level of trust in reason and objectivity (which to me is also a type of faith) to trust it in areas that conflict with their faith.

In actuality, I don’t really think that the theist and atheist are devoid of each others perspectives. It depends more on a weighing of psychological motivations against each other depending on what mode their mind is in, and there is no reason to assume that the mind does not change modes or even have simultaneously existing modes of belief.

In other words, I can function modally as a nihilist because I understand that perspective and when proper, I rely on it, but as a skeptic, I do not necessarily maintain it ultimately, so the reason I do not believe that I am a nihilist is because nihilism seems to necessarily maintain a position positively, namely “there is no objective basis for truthâ€

Ah. I think I get it now. Umm.. maybe.

The multi-modal thing kind of remains beyond my grasp. The talk of "minds changing modes" is pretty esoteric to me. But I think I get the general idea. The skeptic part makes sense. I have a friend who's an agnostic, so the "I don't know anything for sure" mindset is something I'm familiar with. If I'm understanding this modal thing correctly, you go wherever the wind takes you.

The concept of someone having more than one mind, more than one world view is something I really can't wrap my mind around (no pun intended).

I have to say, you are my intellectual better. I often get lost in the language. I'll be reading one of your posts and thinking "What does that even mean?" I know you're speaking plain English, but I often have difficulty just comprehending it. This is particularly amusing to me because I am usually able to engage metaphysical discussion with gusto. I used to hang out on a board and occasionally debate such matters with some of the regulars there. On one occasion, one of the regulars who was a rather simple minded and down to earth guy came out and said that he thought most of us were his intellectual betters. Now I know how that guy felt. Completely lost!

So Bo, you are definitely my intellectual better.

Thanks for replying and clarifying.

Oh, the part that sounded the most Nihilistic to me was when you said that the only point in life is to dance to as much music on as many nights as possible. It's got that "nothing matters; who cares?" quality to it. Although I'm a firm believer in Christianity, there are times when I feel Nihilistic as well.