Philosophy in the form of speculative metaphysics is fiction, if by fiction is meant the impossibility of strict empirical proofs for its conditions.

“…. This, however, may be avoided, if we are sufficiently cautious in the construction of our fictions, which are not the less fictions on that account.…”
(CPR, A4/B8)

“Avoided” means not contradicted by experience, “sufficiently cautious” means logically justified, from which follows that speculative metaphysics, even when treated as a logically grounded science, as in pure mathematics, has no empirical proofs. And without strict empirical proofs, itself a euphemism for indubitable fact, it cannot be said such speculations are indeed the case, hence are fictions, albeit logically justified.

speculative metaphysics, even when treated as a logically grounded science, as in pure mathematics, has no empirical proofs. And without strict empirical proofs, itself a euphemism for indubitable fact, it cannot be said such speculations are indeed the case, hence are fictions, albeit logically justified. — Mww

One definition of scientism is treating science as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things,or, as Wiki says, “ the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.”

Some have embraced scientism as a positive term. Personally, I consider a strict empirical proof as a fiction which just happens to have a large intersubjective community backing it. But then, I support Nietzsche’s view that “the world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Will to Power.)

Yeah, even stating what a fiction might be, is fraught with ambiguity. I just figure a non-fiction is that for which denying the object of it hurts me, and this extreme sets the conditions for its lesser occasions. For that I need no intesubjective community. Still, our strict empirical proof may be a fiction, iff some other intelligence so informs of it. We can only work with what we got, so until then…..

I consider scientism as standing for the notion that science can answer for every conceivable thing asked of it, which is false, from the point of view that science can only answer for that which is asked of it empirically conceived. From that, it follows, first, that science may very well be the only true method for obtaining knowledge about the nature of things, and second, the nature of things is not the only knowledge possible for humans to obtain.

At any rate, I am curious what others would say is the difference between fiction and philosophy and whether one is a proper subset of the other, on they are independent units, with some common domain. (Think of Venn diagrams: one circle representing one of the two, the other circle, representing the other; is one circle completely inside the other, or they only have a common area, intersecting each other?) — god must be atheist

I tend to think of philosophy as wisdom literature. The literature is intended to educate -- sort of like the various religious scripts. But it's not quite right to say philosophy is the same as religious writing. Many communities who like both make a distinction. So I say it's "wisdom literature", in that it's intended to educate people.

But some novels are also intended for that purpose.

Also sometimes philosophy spins fictions, and part of the challenge of reading it is in figuring out which is what -- sometimes the fictions aren't even intentional, it's just that the subject matter is hard and we make mistakes. Sometimes the fictions seem real. And sometimes the fictions are intentionally and carefully crafted by a philosopher to dig out a difficult belief. For me, I think it's a blast. It's done for the pleasure of thinking. Making it even harder to differentiate from a novel, given that these are also written for the pleasure of thinking through fictions.

Another distinction may be that literature is in some sense for the lessers and philosophy is for the betters. Literature is easier than philosophy, and dwells on similar things, so it's for the people who are still growing. The difference is in the difficulty, not in the function. But novelists have managed to write as obscurely as philosophers, with perhaps just as much idiosyncratic flare, so difficulty, too, is not the difference.

Maybe the difference is in what we want them to be?

I consider scientism as standing for the notion that science can answer for every conceivable thing asked of it, which is false, from the point of view that science can only answer for that which is asked of it empirically conceived. From that, it follows, first, that science may very well be the only true method for obtaining knowledge about the nature of things, and second, the nature of things is not the only knowledge possible for humans to obtain. — Mww

The other definition of scientism deals with the assumption that the world which provides us with the source of our empirical evidence of truth is not already caught up in a hermeneutic circle. That is , scientism fails
to recognize that the ‘ evidence from nature’ which forms our truths belongs to a culturally constructed nature which we can never get beneath or beyond. In chasing truth we are chasing our own tail. In its progress, science moves farther and farther away from some original nature rather than closer to it. This doesnt mean that science isn’t extremely useful, just that truth as pragmatic usefulness is not about knowledge of the “true nature of things”, or even knowledge at all so much as practical ways of interacting with a world.

Is philosophy really fiction, or non-fiction? — god must be atheist

The ghost of Witt says: is this question of the right form? Where did these two categories and their apparently all-encompassing nature derive from?

I think of philosophy, like poetry and lyric, as imaginative speaking and writing that doesn't belong within these categories.

This doesnt mean that science isn’t extremely useful, just that truth as pragmatic usefulness is not about knowledge of the “true nature of things”, or even knowledge at all so much as practical ways of interacting with a world. — Joshs

To have a practical way of interacting with the world, I should think it might help to know something about it, which we trust science to provide.

As for the true nature of things….we have no warrant to make any such claims.

Is philosophy really fiction, or non-fiction? — god must be atheist

Non-fiction consists of narratives about social and/or natural facts (e.g. reportage, histories, sciences). Philosophy, however, is a narrative about 'narrativity and other concepts' and so I don't consider it non-fiction even though philosophical texts frequently cite or interpret non-fictional texts. Unlike poetry, which expresses heightened feelings and ideas through rigorous play with ambiguities, philosophy strives for clarity and precision in non-fallacious expressions of aporia or ideas; and yet like poetry, philosophy is not propositional (i.e. does not make empirical or formal claims) but instead is, IME, reflectively performative – in sum, consisting of proposals (e.g. suppositions, norms, interpretations, distinctions, criteria, etc).

Thanks for the responses, folks!

So Murdoch's argument is that philosophy keeps going back to the problem, reconsidering it doggedly.

A thing noticeably missing form many a thread.

A tidy way to sort philosophy from fiction.

Thanks for the link.

Indeed, one might suppose that asking if philosophy is fiction shows a disregard for both.

It's the wrong question...

:up:

Unlike poetry, which expresses heightened feelings and ideas through rigorous play with ambiguities, philosophy strives for clarity and precision in non-fallacious expressions of aporia or ideas; and yet like poetry, philosophy is not propositional (i.e. does not make empirical or formal claims) but instead is, IME, reflectively performative – in sum, consisting of proposals (e.g. suppositions, norms, interpretations, distinctions, criteria, etc). — 180 Proof

This better describes what analytical philosophy in particular aspires to achieve, but not necessarily continental philosophy.

To the point though, philosophy strives to achieve truth, which can be revealed in all sorts of ways, not excluding through openly fictional writings.

To the point though, philosophy strives to achieve truth, which can be revealed in all sorts of ways, not excluding through openly fictional writings. — Hanover

What kind of truth do we encounter in fiction - do you have an example?

What kind of truth do we encounter in fiction - do you have an example? — Tom Storm

To Kill a Mockingbird, for example.

Yes, but for you what is the specific truth it holds?

, but for you what is the specific truth it holds — Tom Storm

Racism bad.

Thanks. Is dramatising an issue what makes fiction successful in telling truths?

Thanks. Is dramatising an issue what makes fiction successful in telling truths? — Tom Storm

Parables and fables are specifically designed for the purpose of providing truths. But the same can be said of more extensive works. And that holds not just for literature, but other forms of art.

And greater truths can derived from reality, as in the sort of truth and the prundity of meaning you may receive from experiencing a great success, failure, attending a funeral, a wedding, a childbirth, or seeing a sunrise.

If the world is imbued with meaning, no matter where you look, meaning well beyond the literal recitation of the facts can be found.

But this is the question of whether the meaning is in the thing or whether we're just programmed to find meaning where there is none.

It is true that we don't stare at castles and see random clouds, but we do stare at random clouds and see castles. That might be enough for some to deny the deeper meaning is real, but only projected, but I go with the opposite: that the deeper meaning is there in everything, available to be discovered if we only look hard enough.

If the world is imbued with meaning, no matter where you look, meaning well beyond the literal recitation of the facts can be found. — Hanover

Agree.

And greater truths can derived from reality, as in the sort of truth and the prundity of meaning you may receive from experiencing a great success, failure, attending a funeral, a wedding, a childbirth, or seeing a sunrise. — Hanover

I'm not sure I would commit to calling such experiences truths as such. What they are, I can't say. Profound experiences?

I guess where I was heading is that I can't think of anything new I have learned by reading fiction. Generally fiction seems to provide something which either resonates or doesn't. Good fiction reminds me of what I already know but may struggle to express. So I wonder if philosophy is more likely to provide the reader with something that seems entirely new? Maybe it's just me.

I still don't know how to differentiate fiction from philosophy (if one is not the proper subset of the other).

They both convey meaning; But meaning is everywhere, some say. Or nowhere, only we are creatures that see or seek meaning everywhere. Or both. Or neither.

I agree mostly with Tom Storm, that fiction deals with the extremely familiar. It tells us tales that entertain and reinforce, as opposed to teach or give new insights. It reinforces social norms, ethics, morals.

Philosophy, on the other hand, goes rampantly wild in the intellectual landscape. A lot of people are incredulous of solipsism, of reincarnation, of not being able to refute that the universe just started this minute and all our past experiences are memories that came to life with our beginning.

So philosophy does not reinforce, but it teaches, and it challenges. Literature reinforces. The emotions that poetry generates are not brand new, they are just getting life breathed into them. Catharsis, dramatic solution, choice of colours and brushstrokes, and size of statues, are all in the service of reinforcement -- hence the huge popularity of paintings and songs in all religious ceremonies and places of worship.

Some say it is wrong to ask to try to see the difference between philosophy and literature. However, there are two different words that mean them, because two different concepts exist. If we push away the question by branding it wrong, we are not philosophers, but a bunch of lazy thinkers, or else we are inept at distinguishing between two rather useful concepts.

I'm not sure I would commit to calling such experiences truths as such. What they are, I can't say. Profound experiences? — Tom Storm

Racism being bad is either true or false. The empirical conclusions obtained by experience are either true or false. I'm not just referencing the emotional experience.

I guess where I was heading is that I can't think of anything new I have learned by reading fiction — Tom Storm

Assuming what you say is true (that fiction cannot teach new facts, but only reaffirm what is known), how does thar defeat your initial objection that fiction didn't hold truth?

You're just making claims about how learning occurs. Are you making a claim about how you specifically learn here or how everyone does?

In any event, I think you're going to great lengths to sustain a dubious claim about the information provided through fiction. To say that To Kill a Mockingbird gave you no new insight into the injustice of racism, but reading a true article about Rosa Parks (for example) did, seems a hard argument to make.

A bigger example is religious literature. It's why claims regarding their literal inaccuracies are insignificant to all except literalists.

It could in fact be true, for example, that not slaving away every day to build and create new things in our lives but to actually spend some time enjoying the fruits of our labor leads to a more fulfilled life.

Agree or disagree, but that might be true.

I can say it that way, or I can give you a tale about the world being created in 6 days, with the 7th set aside for rest, and then command you to keep it holy.

Truth through fiction.

The other definition of scientism deals with the assumption that the world which provides us with the source of our empirical evidence of truth is not already caught up in a hermeneutic circle. That is, scientism fails to recognize that the ‘ evidence from nature’ which forms our truths belongs to a culturally constructed nature which we can never get beneath or beyond. — Joshs

Well put. I'd go further than "culturally constructed nature." Some of our reality is constructed based on biological, genetic, neurological, and instinctive factors, e.g. the structure of our nervous and sensory systems. We are born human with a human nature.

Is philosophy really fiction, or non-fiction? — god must be atheist

Everything, anything anyone says or writes is a story, a narrative. Anything, everything expressed in human language. "Apple" is a story. No part of what we call "reality" is a thing in itself. Is it fiction or non-fiction? I suppose you could call it fiction, but that misses the point.

Well put. I'd go further than "culturally constructed nature." Some of our reality is constructed based on biological, genetic, neurological, and instinctive factors, e.g. the structure of our nervous and sensory systems. We are born human with a human nature. — T Clark

Yes indeed. Kant laid the groundwork for psychologists to begin paying attention to our ‘embodied’ ways of relating to the world.

You're just making claims about how learning occurs. Are you making a claim about how you specifically learn here or how everyone does? — Hanover

Actually, I'm not making claims, I'm posing questions based on how I recall my experiences. You'll note I didn't say fiction does not teach us anything, I said I can't think of anything fiction has taught me.

how does thar defeat your initial objection that fiction didn't hold truth? — Hanover

Not sure I was making an objection. I was asking a question. I am wondering what kinds of truth fiction holds. I am still unclear.

I think you're going to great lengths to sustain a dubious claim about the information provided through fiction. — Hanover

Great lengths? Good heavens, I thought we were just having a conversation about one small aspect of how fiction works on the back of 'philosophy being fiction.'

Kant laid the groundwork for psychologists to begin paying attention to our ‘embodied’ ways of relating to the world. — Joshs

I don't see how the "Copernican" centrality of Kant's disembodied – transcendental – categories of reason "pays attention to our embodied ways of relating to the world" (à la e.g. Nietzsche, Bataille, Jaspers, Merleau-Ponty, de Beauvoir, Lakoff, Dennett, Nussbaum, Metzinger ...) :chin:

I don't see how the "Copernican" centrality of Kant's disembodied – transcendental – categories of reason "pays attention to our embodied ways of relating to the world" — 180 Proof

I think, for Kant, "embodied ways of relating to the world" include perception of time and space.

What may be the nature of objects considered as things in themselves and without reference to the receptivity of our sensibility is quite unknown to us. We know nothing more than our mode of perceiving them, which is peculiar to us, and which, though not of necessity pertaining to every animated being, is so to the whole human race. With this alone we have to do. Space and time are the pure forms thereof; sensation the matter. The former alone can we cognize a priori, that is, antecedent to all actual perception; and for this reason such cognition is called pure intuition. The latter is that in our cognition which is called cognition a posteriori, that is, empirical intuition. — Kant - Critique of Pure Reason

Are you and I talking about the same thing?

I'm not sure I would commit to calling such experiences truths as such. What they are, I can't say. Profound experiences?

I guess where I was heading is that I can't think of anything new I have learned by reading fiction. — Tom Storm

I think some of your attitude might come from your disdain for most of popular culture. I don't mean that as criticism. Let's look at something you do value - music. I like music, but it isn't really my thing. I assume what I sometimes get from fiction is similar to what you get from music you love. Maybe you wouldn't call that learning something new either, and I think I'd agree.

As I've said before, for me, art is created by artists in order to help us experience what the artist did during it's creation. Do you "learn anything new" from your life experiences in general? Sure, but it's not usually knowledge that can be expressed in propositions. Do I learn anything from loving my children? From eating a good meal? From eating a bad meal? From good sex? From ba.... well. From sleeping late in a warm bed? From throwing up because I drank too much? Again, yes, but what I learn isn't facts. It's generally not even things I can put into words. It's how the world and my mind work. How things fit together. What the ring of truth sounds like. From the time we are born we each create a conceptual model of the world we carry around with us.

:up:

I think, for Kant, "embodied ways of relating to the world" include perception of time and space. — T Clark

Kant says, in effect, the mind (somehow) 'generates' "time and space" in order to structure "preception" of "the world" which includes "embodied ways" (i.e. phenomena); we don't "perceive time and space" (which is he deems a mistake or transcendental illusion). In other words, IIRC, we "relate to the world" transcendentally, according to Kant, not corporeally, or primarily empirically.