Not really sure I see there being a paradox at all. If I read a text about a horrific event I will empathize with it. Whether the description is a factual one or not is irrelevant. Of course, if I...
Not really sure I see there being a paradox at all. If I read a text about a horrific event I will empathize with it. Whether the description is a factual one or not is irrelevant. Of course, if I know that a text is fictional I the bar for emphasizing with the situations is likely higher, i.e. the description must be more vivid. Inversely if a text describe an actual event I am likely more inclined to empathize with it.
However, neither descriptions are the actual event. I always need to imagine the situations depicted whether it be fictitious or factual. When someone tells me about a part of their life, that situation isn't happening to me or them then and there. I emphasize with them based on their description, the story they tell me. But, it isn't real. It isn't actually happening. So in that sense it is the same as fiction.
How is it that we can be moved by what we know does not exist, namely the situations of people in fictional stories? The so-called “paradox of emotional response to fiction” is an argument for the conclusion that our emotional response to fiction is irrational.
The argument contains an inconsistent triad of premises, all of which seem initially plausible. These premises are (1) that in order for us to be moved (to tears, to anger, to horror) by what we come to learn about various people and situations, we must believe that the people and situations in question really exist or existed; (2) that such “existence beliefs” are lacking when we knowingly engage with fictional texts; and (3) that fictional characters and situations do in fact seem capable of moving us at times
Not really sure I see there being a paradox at all. If I read a text about a horrific event I will empathize with it. Whether the description is a factual one or not is irrelevant. Of course, if I know that a text is fictional I the bar for emphasizing with the situations is likely higher, i.e. the description must be more vivid. Inversely if a text describe an actual event I am likely more inclined to empathize with it.
However, neither descriptions are the actual event. I always need to imagine the situations depicted whether it be fictitious or factual. When someone tells me about a part of their life, that situation isn't happening to me or them then and there. I emphasize with them based on their description, the story they tell me. But, it isn't real. It isn't actually happening. So in that sense it is the same as fiction.