Biblical contradictions.

[Baruch]

How nice that you agree.

Humans invent things ... some of which is called fiction.  Politics is less nice than poetry however.  I don't think Vulcans could ken poetry ... they are too literal.

[Cavebear]

Humans invent things ... some of which is called fiction.  Politics is less nice than poetry however.  I don't think Vulcans could ken poetry ... they are too literal.

Vulcans are fictional.

[Baruch]

Vulcans are fictional.

No Grey aliens are.  Vulcans have clearly infiltrated our society.  But they are mostly mathematicians.

[luckswallowsall]

Here's a queston: Does it count as fictional if it's not intended to be fictional?

If the goat herders who wrote the Bible were psychotic enough to actually believe that they were in touch with some higher power when they wrote what they wrote and they actually believed that their stories were literally true... then would it still be fiction?

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

If it's supposed to be a true story, and believed to be a true story by the writers of that story, but the story actually fails to be true, is that fiction?

[Cavebear]

Here's a queston: Does it count as fictional if it's not intended to be fictional?

If the goat herders who wrote the Bible were psychotic enough to actually believe that they were in touch with some higher power when they wrote what they wrote and they actually believed that their stories were literally true... then would it still be fiction?

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

If it's supposed to be a true story, and believed to be a true story by the writers of that story, but the story actually fails to be true, is that fiction?

Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe

[luckswallowsall]

Yes
Yes
Maybe
Maybe

Your first two answers appear to be inconsistent with your last two answers.

[Cavebear]

Your first two answers appear to be inconsistent with your last two answers.

They are not.  Your individual questions had differences, and therefore separate answers.  The last two depend on knowledge and intent, I think.

[luckswallowsall]

They are not.  Your individual questions had differences, and therefore separate answers.  The last two depend on knowledge and intent, I think.

They appear to be inconsistent to me because the reason why the answer is "yes" to the first two questions appears to be the same reason the answers to the next two questions should also be "yes".

Yes, they the questions had differences, but did they have logically relevant differences?

[Cavebear]

They appear to be inconsistent to me because the reason why the answer is "yes" to the first two questions appears to be the same reason the answers to the next two questions should also be "yes".

Yes, they the questions had differences, but did they have logically relevant differences?

In my opinion, yes.  In your opinion, no.

[luckswallowsall]

In my opinion, yes.  In your opinion, no.

We both already know that we both have different opinions on this matter. The fact that we disagree on this matter already makes that obvious.

[Mike Cl]

If a book tries and fails to represent reality, isn't that just inaccurate non-fiction? Whether it's a story that's written or not?

I like your question.  Lets look at this part.  Let's take the bible as an example.  Who knows what the beliefs, thoughts or facts the authors were laboring under?  Who knows who the authors were, except for Paul?  This is a theist's fav. tactic--you believe the bible is not true (for them it is an 'of course it is fact!'), so prove it.  They are trying to shove their responsibility onto me; why should I try to disprove a fiction?  And it is for them to establish that the bible is not fiction--and they can't.  So they like to skip that step.  If I were to say to you that faeries are real and do exist; and when you disagree, I simply say, prove it--they DO exist.  Would that be a fair way to have a discussion about faeries? 

If those goat herders sincerely believed with all their hearts that they were simply repeating facts, does not make it so.  They need to provide some kind of proof--not beliefs.  People write non-fiction books all the time that are fiction--their beliefs and sincerity does not establish one single fact.

[luckswallowsall]

I like your question.  Lets look at this part.  Let's take the bible as an example.  Who knows what the beliefs, thoughts or facts the authors were laboring under?  Who knows who the authors were, except for Paul?  This is a theist's fav. tactic--you believe the bible is not true (for them it is an 'of course it is fact!'), so prove it.  They are trying to shove their responsibility onto me; why should I try to disprove a fiction?  And it is for them to establish that the bible is not fiction--and they can't.  So they like to skip that step.

The way I see it is... the bible may or may not be fiction... as the authors may or may not have intended for it to be a made-up story.... but regardless of whether the bible is fiction or not, it certainly isn't factual, and it certainly is nonsense.

I guess I consider fiction to be something that is intentionally transparently represented to be untrue.

Fiction starts with making it transparent that "This is not a true story."

Look at it this way: For something to be false it has to simply not be true. For something to be a lie it has to be intentionally untrue but presented as if it's true in order to deceive others. For something to be fiction it has to be intentionally untrue but transparently presented as such so that everyone knows it's just a story.

I think that if the bible authors genuinely believed what they wrote... then the bible is nonsense but the writers of the bible were not liars, nor is the bible a work of fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they intentionally misrepresented what they wrote as truth... then the bible is a work of deception, and a way to con people (and perhaps control primitive people)... but it's not fiction.

I think that if the bible authors didn't believe what they wrote, but they presented what they wrote as not true and just a story... then either somehow everyone else around them forgot that it was just a story... or people used to know it was just a story but many years later everyone forgot that it was just a story.... or the bible authors presented it as just a story, and a work of fiction, but no one believed them and others insisted that it was true. This would be very bizarre. But it's not impossible... as it's rather similar to how people who deny that they're a guru or deny that they're a messiah tend to only strengthen the conviction in others that they are some sort of guru, or that they are the messiah . .  . in any case, if one of these options is true then I'd say that the bible is indeed a work of fiction.

Regardless of which is the case, the bible isn't factual, and it certainly doesn't represent reality.

If everything that isn't factual is fictional... then the bible is indeed fictional.

But I think that there's more to the meaning of "fictional" than that. I think that's why we have fiction versus non-fiction... rather than fiction versus factual, in the book stores. Some people may write non-fiction that turns out to be far from factual... and some may write fictional stories that accidentally turn out to be true.

If I were to say to you that faeries are real and do exist; and when you disagree, I simply say, prove it--they DO exist.  Would that be a fair way to have a discussion about faeries?

It would be irrational for you to put the onus on me... so in that sense it would be unfair. 

If those goat herders sincerely believed with all their hearts that they were simply repeating facts, does not make it so.

Indeed. Even if the bible isn't a work of fiction, is still far from factual.

They need to provide some kind of proof--not beliefs.  People write non-fiction books all the time that are fiction--their beliefs and sincerity does not establish one single fact.

I notice you are using two different senses of "fiction" there. As, of course, a book can't be both fiction and not fiction in the same sense. And that was the point of my question.

There are many books that are non-fictional in the sense that they are intended to represent fact... but they are fictional in the sense that they don't actually represent fact.

Basically, my question comes down to, do failures to represent fact go in the fiction section? Or do only stories intended to be just stories go in the fiction section?

[SGOS]

I don't usually do this, but for what it's worth:

fic·tion
/ˈfikSH(ə)n/

noun: fiction
1. literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people.

2. invention or fabrication as opposed to fact.
synonyms: fabrication, invention, lies, fibs, untruth, falsehood, fantasy, nonsense

3.a belief or statement that is false, but that is often held to be true because it is expedient to do so.

antonyms: fact

I realize this probably resolves nothing.

[luckswallowsall]

I don't usually do this, but for what it's worth:

I realize this probably resolves nothing.

Yes, it doesn't... as an antonym is merely the direct opposite of a synonym and a synonym is not a homonym. Basically, if a word has an antonym then it just means that that word refers to the opposite of something similar.

The really relevant thing, and the problem here, is the fact that there's more than one sense of "fiction" and each sense will have different opposites. The most logical opposite being the direct absence of itself.

Basically, we need to create true rather than false dichotomies... but we can only create true dichotomies to each specific sense of a word, as different senses are not identical to each other, as if they were identical they wouldn't even be different senses.

This is also why dictionaries are better than thesauruses if you want to actually know the meanings of words, rather than just try and find similar words, or opposite meanings to similar words. Thesauruses can make your head spin if you're not careful. If you want to develop a mind full of equivocations, then learn meanings of words through thesauruses rather than dictionaries.

[Baruch]

Read the dictionary of Samuel Johnson, Voltaire or Ambrose Beirce ... you will swear off dictionaries and strong drink, if you do.

Many of the entries in the OED were written by a psychotic.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5932728/

All of philosophy is about language and how it is used and misused.  Otherwise philosophers have nothing to say -- my paraphrase of Wittgenstein.