Avgvsto
stealthmongoose
I don't hold this work to have absolute truths or applicability in all instances, ergo i accept it as a fable and the inspirational quality of it's story. Your question is malformed, as nobody who i know follows a fiction dogmatically unless they hold it to be true in some sense beyond a simple fable or fictional inspiration.
If you don't accept the fable as a universal truth why would it pertain to a universal question? Also, do you really think that society is in no way influenced by the fictitious cultures that go into it? And if you don't why is that influence which offers emotional background any less a part of dogma than the allegations (such as actual law and philosophy) that are made as an after effect of emotion and thought- in fact how is it not more essential?
Because questions (even universal ones) don't have universal solutions. "What is the meaning of life?" for example is a question that supposes the opinion of either the asker or those being asked, as meaning is created by those involved in the function. A hammer is not meant to do anything until it's put to a nail, before then it can be used to bash someone's skull in or otherwise, at which point it was meant to bash someone's skull in.
I've spoken with someone else on the subject of influence and fiction, and i think that fiction can be influential like any song, ballad, myth, or otherwise. Before we proceed to that notion, however, let me clarify your question to see if i understand what you're asking...
What you are asking is, in a nutshell, "But stealthy, if fiction can be influential to the point of making laws and societal decisions that work unless examined skeptically by most people (murder being a crime in all instances for example, makes self defense impossible) then why don't we just consider it religion or dogma and follow it as an absolute truth?
The answer to that is simple. We want our societal practices and truths to be based around reality, if nothing more than for practical purposes. I really hate to simplify your argument further, but here is an example of two ideas, one of which is more fictional than the other.
Idea 1: Sandwiches are made from a number of ingredients: Bread, cheese, ham, lettuce, tomatoes, mustard, pickles, etc. are all stacked on top of one another in between the two slices of bread to create what is commonly known as a sandwich.
Idea 2: Sandwiches are made by the will of God. The ingredients come from his divine grace, and by putting these ingredients in a certain order God's will is done, thus making a divine sandwich.
While in both instances, this may appear tempting, and in some cases may even yield sandwiches in both cases; The issue comes when we try to research these ideas and put them to practice. In practice, idea 1 is more efficient, accurate, and demonstrable than idea 2. Idea 2 will never have the same truth value as idea 1, and idea 2 isn't even the right way to make a sandwich.
That's why we label idea 2 fictional. Idea 2 can be followed, but other than for inspirational purposes there is no real truth to it, though the principles can lead one towards making a real sandwich.
Much like the emperor's new clothes can lead me to making real observations about arguments from authority and ideas without appealing to the fiction as though it were true in all instances.
Overall Avgusto, i think you're suffering from a problem that you see as binary. You consider it impossible for anything to have value unless it is dogmatically true, which is why it is easy for those like me and others to draw inspiration from fictitious work without appealing to them as true, while others (presumably the stance you're presenting) require the idea to be true in all instances inescapably or else surrender itself to being completely false.
While at times i could find myself agreeing with this sort of attitude, fiction is made specifically for this purpose, of having an uncanny life-lesson without proposing that the story is literally true. As such, it has a special place in my heart that is neither immune from scrutiny nor proposes to be absolutely true, making it neither necessary or essential in delegating societal or other policies. Law, in this instance, is a moot point.
0
0
0
