It suggests that a story is either true or false (or, something in between?). "An account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment" was the first definition I found. But all stories exist, they're all true in that respect. Just because we know the events of one story occurred does not make it necessarily a better story than one that did not - as the dichotomy of "true" and "false" would suggest. "False" has the connotation of something being wrong with the subject. This shouldn't be the case.
If anything, an imaginary story has more truth to it, less false details, than a "true" story. In the telling of true stories we aim to recount an event accurately. But this is nearly impossible, especially orally - take a look at how myths change over time, details lost and invented in the telling. There's too many variations of just one myth - the Odyssey, Orpheus' descent, Theseus and the Minotaur - to count.
At least an imaginary story has integrity. It doesn't claim to be true, and because of that, none of its details are inaccurate ("false"), there's no reference point to judge these details as such. Besides, in my weird, nihilistic philosophy, at times I have a paradoxical frame of mind. I take everything as impossible to discern as truth, as real - see my other post on nihilism. But this means that the imaginary holds as much validity as the "true". So, somehow, sometimes, I end up believing in both everything, and nothing.
Weird.
No comments:
Post a Comment