Alex Fisher

Creationism about fictional and theoretical names holds that seemingly empty names such as ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and ‘Vulcan’ refer to abstract objects created by authors and scientific theorists. This paper poses an objection to creationism: in cases of fiction writing or scientific theorising where it is indeterminate whether one succeeds or fails in referring to an object in the world, creationism renders it metaphysically indeterminate whether an abstract object is created. However, the indeterminate existence of abstract objects constitutes an untenable metaphysical commitment, offering a compelling reason to reject creationism.

Imaginatively adopted attitudes and ways of thinking sometimes persist, bleeding into day-to-day thoughts and interactions. Such imaginative contagion is often reported in the context of theatrical acting, and is also observed among videogame players and virtual reality users. A first question is how imaginative contagion occurs. This paper distinguishes immediate and delayed contagion, which differ in their temporal duration, and offers an explanation of each. Yet imaginative contagion also poses an ethical concern: troubling attitudes we imaginatively adopt might persist, damaging our moral character. This paper indicates how experiencing imaginative resistance, and our practicing techniques of active quarantine, can help to prevent our acquiring highly immoral attitudes, diminishing the concern about the corruptive influence of imaginative contagion.

Virtual reality headsets present us with two images, one directly before each of our eyes. One might therefore suppose that virtual reality offers experiences with the phenomenology of many other depictive images – an experience of seeing-in. This paper argues that the phenomenology of virtual reality does not involve seeing-in due to our lacking the required awareness of virtual reality images’ configuration. Instead, virtual reality is intended to generate an experience resembling that of everyday perception, artificially recreating the phenomenology of various experiences. Interestingly, however, the present technical limitations of virtual reality frequently also generate an underrecognized form of twofold experience, where we are perceptually aware of both the content of a virtual reality image and the way that content is represented, yet still without our seeing-in. But while this twofold experience is often unintended, it can also be deliberately aimed at to help guard against some of virtual reality’s potential harms.

This paper provides a novel defence of the philosophical use of examples drawn from literature, by comparison with thought experiments and real cases. Such fictional examples, subject to certain constraints, can play a similar role to real cases in establishing the generality of a social phenomenon. Furthermore, the distinct psychological vantage point offered by literature renders it a potent resource for elucidating intricate social dynamics. This advantage of the internal insight that fictional examples can (though do not always) possess helps explain their prevalence in certain areas of philosophy, such as ethics, epistemology, and the philosophy of emotion, in which we can require a more precise characterization of a subject's mental states. While the respective advantages of fictional examples, real cases, and thought experiments clearly depend on many contextual factors, the former have an important, and arguably underappreciated, role to play in philosophical inquiry.

It is controversial whether virtual reality should be considered fictional or real. Virtual fictionalists claim that objects and events within virtual reality are merely fictional: they are imagined and do not exist. Virtual realists argue that virtual objects and events really exist. This metaphysical debate might appear important for some of the practical questions that arise regarding how to morally evaluate and legally regulate virtual reality. For instance, one advantage claimed of virtual realism is that only by taking virtual objects and events to be real can we explain our strong emotional reactions to certain virtual actions, as well as their potential immorality. This paper argues that emotional reactions towards, and wrongs within, virtual reality are consistent with its being merely fictional. The emotional and ethical judgments we wish to make regarding virtual reality do not provide any grounds for preferring virtual realism.

This paper provides an account of truth in interactive fiction. Interactive fiction allows the audience to make choices, resulting in many different possible fictions within each interactive fiction, unlike in literary fiction where there is just one. Adequately capturing this feature of interactive fiction requires us to address familiar issues regarding impossible fiction and the nature of time in fiction. Truth in interactive fiction thus requires a complex account to capture its multitude of fictions. It is argued that a full account of truth in interactive fiction requires distinguishing two works for each interactive fiction, which contain distinct fictional truths. The actual work encompasses what is in fact represented as fictional (hence mistakes can be fictionally true in this work), whilst in the implied work, truth in fiction is governed by authorial intention, hence mistakes are not fictionally true. This dual account best captures our aesthetic evaluation of interactive fictions, for which we often need to distinguish how the work actually is from how it was intended to be.