How do you incorporate philosophy in fictional writing?

[ragdoll]

I would love to open a discussion on how to incorporate philosophy in fictional works.

 

If anyone has any ideas/methods on how to do so or prime examples of philosophy being conveyed through fiction that they would be willing to share with me, I would greatly appreciate it.

[autowagon]

How do you not incorporate philosophy in fictional works?  You can't sing a song you ain't got nothing to say, can't play music you ain't got nothing to play. 

[shirgall]

I would love to open a discussion on how to incorporate philosophy in fictional works.

 

If anyone has any ideas/methods on how to do so or prime examples of philosophy being conveyed through fiction that they would be willing to share with me, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

It is, of course, very difficult, but some of the best writing is when it is clear that honest people have honest differences of opinion and work through that. The ones that are hard to read get preachy and you can kinda tell which person is the author giving a speech to you, the audience. I am no fiction writer, but I am interested in how it goes for you.

[Snafui]

Discovery of what universal was violated as the underlying theme; e.g. how can there be justice if they can do what I am not allowed to do.

[MysterionMuffles]

Making the characters as consistent as possible with reality. It doesn't matter what your setting is, as long as the characters behave and react to situations realistically and embody virtues. For more on how to incoporate philosophy into fiction take a free gander at my blog http://www.yourwritetolive.com

 

If philosophy means the pursuit of truth and moral excellence, you must, through your characters and stories, realistically depict situations that reflect on philosophical principles. For instance, if honesty is a philosophical virtue you'd like to touch on in a story, you can have a world that involves a lot of falsehood, and one character can be the honest one to undo illusions. You would show what would happen when illusions are undone as well as the long term benefits of what honesty entails.

[LovePrevails]

demonstrate the consequences of certain philosophies/outlooks on life through the consequences of your characters actions

[PatrickC]

If you donate up to Gold level you'll get a free audio version of Stefan's book, 'The God of Athiests'.. A perfect example of philosophy in fiction.

[12StringSamurai]

Speaking as a writer who draws heavily on Philosophy, if you haven't already read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, start there.  Ayn Rand is brilliant at weaving Philosophical concepts into fictional people and situations, though she can get "preachy" in a few places.  I would recommend NOT having straight up speeches where characters articulate their philosophy directly as she does.  It's hitting your readers over their heads with your message, and it generally turns people off.

 

What Rand does that works well is, create characters that embody Philosophical schools of thought, and then examine their actions in the context of a fictional situation.  

 

In the Fountainhead (spoilers ahead), Roark is the ideal man who lives according to Objectivist principles.  He is practically the only character in the book who is happy.  Everyone else is constantly jockeying for political power and worrying about their social circle.  Roark is delighted when he gets enough work to have a meager office and a phone.  The other characters work hard to destroy him, but he overcomes. 

 

Toohey is Roark's opposite, and is basically Rand's exaggerated caricature of a leftist intellectual.  He subtly manipulates others using his column, and tricks people into acting in his interest by building up their prestige or tearing them down.  He destroys the lives of several people around him through the course of the novel.  

 

Rand takes these two characters and brilliantly creates situations where they would butt heads with each other.  Toohey attempts to destroy Roark with his values, Roark finds a way to survive and ultimately conquer with his values.  Toohey ruins Roark's reputation among the social elites, Roark builds gas stations, grocery stores and houses, but builds them his way with pride and attracts a following.  Etc. 

 

Ideally, you can write stories like this without people feeling like they're reading a Philosophical allegory.  It should just read like an exciting and interesting story.

 

It's challenging, but it's a ton of fun too. 

[AncapFTW]

I've never been published (I get writers block about 3 or 4 chapters in and give up generally), so take everything I say with a grain of salt, but I have two approaches to my lead character.

 

1) Make them an everyman that learns and grows, eventually reaching your philosophical ideal.

2) Make them the embodiment of your ideal, and have them weather the storms of adversity, bringing other characters closer to your ideal.

 

You also have to take into account your setting.  For example, a medieval peasant isn't going to be a philosophical anarchist.  They might, however, be fed up with the corruption they see in the nobles and sympathize with the bandits/outlaws who stood up to them and became criminals, real or fake, because of this.  If your character is an anachronism, they are less believable, which distracts from the story and the lesson.

 

I'd avoid monologues, and instead have them teach by example or answer specific questions from other characters, depending on their personality and the situation.

[aviet]

12StringSamurai has some good points. If you incorporate philosophy into art in an obtrusive manner it will likely fail to cast the sort of spell that great art is known for. It would be easy for any of us, for example, to write a literal song about the Fed, but it wouldn't be very inspiring and better suited to a work of non-fiction. The trick is to drape your philosophy in metaphor and stretch it out over a series of incidents. In my opinion, it shouldn't be obvious that the philosophy is actually incorporated into the book at all. For example, I have held views since I was a child that would be considered libertarian, but I had no concept of libertarianism in the modern sense (i.e. not Lew Rockwell.) If I read a book that was interwoven with a libertarian philosophy, I would not have been able to specifically identify what it was, but there would likely be points or traits I found attractive. That is the affect I would be looking to achieve; particularly as few people have an understanding of liberty.

You convey your philosophy over a series of incidences and personal interactions. Example:

Set in the City of New York, a special squad is tasked to investigate the mafia.
At a point where the squad is near to closing on the mafia the record a conversation with a mafioso and an aide to the mayor of NYC, in which an arrangement is made for the aide to pick up $100,000.
The aide is arrested, but upon pressure from mid-level police management he is let go with no further inquiry.
With a bit of chicanery, the special squad is shut down and the charges brought down on the mafia by them are meek.
However a fairly high level police re-groups the squad, some of whom have been 'sent to the north pole' for subordination, as he saw they were very effective, for his own ends, a personal vendetta.
They begin investigating something completely different, but it turns out the mafia are involved
Again the squad gets a whiff of financial connections between the mayor and the mafia and this time is able to subpoena some government officials for documents
The mayor then starts using his official powers and lackeys in police management to make things very difficult for the investigation squad
In the end the mayor gets one of his lap dogs to fall on their sword as the establishment circles around to protect its own with its official powers
The mayor fails to get elected, but is replaced by someone featured in the story who was even worse than the mayor

In the midst of this, it is gradually revealed that the police and mayor's office is just a bunch of cronies, scratching each other's back and using their official powers to cover up their own. Apply a liberal dose of weaselly government dupes to provide an extra factor of disgust.

In no place is it necessary to convey the philosophy - an agency of force will result in unstoppable corruption and abuses. You don't even have to leave that specific through on their mind. But anyone who reads a well-written and engaging story as outline above is probably going to have their perception of government shifted in some way.

[ragdoll]

Thank you to everyone that has replied!  It was very helpful.  I had some sort of block about writing philosophy into fiction before this post but you all have helped greatly in alleviating said block.  This seems so obvious now that it's amusing that I didn't understand it at first.  Any more tips on how to do this effectively would be appreciated.

 

I also have a block when it comes to understanding Stefan's theory on magic in fiction.  For whatever reason, I can rationally understand his argument but after a day or two passes I couldn't tell you what Stefan's stance on magic in writing is.  It's quite the "blind spot."  

 

Does anyone have any ideas as to why these two subjects are/were "blind spots" for me?

[Tservitive]

Stef talks about this topic with the final caller on podcast #2903, at least to some degree.

[DaVinci]

Stef talks about this topic with the final caller on podcast #2903, at least to some degree.

That last caller sounded extremely nervous with all the fumbling through descriptions.

 

...

 

As for Stef's take on magic he basically says magic = madness. An interesting take on it for sure, (though I have my own take), but why do you think it is a "blind spot" for you? You said you understood him, but didn't understand him and then didn't remember what he said. Maybe you just disagree with his take? What is your view on magic in fiction?

[ragdoll]

I think that it's a blind spot because I've heard his argument for magic being madness a few times now and I can never remember it when I try to analyze the argument for myself.  It just doesn't "stick" and that's pretty atypical.

 

Something similar happened when I was trying to figure out how to incorporate philosophy into writing.  I basically would blank out and not be able to think about the issue.

[AncapFTW]

In my fiction, "magic" is an extension of physics.  Everyone's powers are essentially just an organic version of technology, generally with a common cause, like micro-telekinesis,

[DaVinci]

I think that it's a blind spot because I've heard his argument for magic being madness a few times now and I can never remember it when I try to analyze the argument for myself.  It just doesn't "stick" and that's pretty atypical.

 

Something similar happened when I was trying to figure out how to incorporate philosophy into writing.  I basically would blank out and not be able to think about the issue.

You didn't really answer my question. Why is it a blind spot? Why do you "blank out"?

 

"Blanking out" and not remembering stuff sounds like something someone would do to cover up past trauma. Do you associate writing fictional worlds with trauma?

[ragdoll]

It's possible that I associate it with family or christianity.  But I only talk to one of my family members and we've both been atheists since we were young.  We were raised by preachers though and I've always considered the whole christian experience to be fairly traumatic.  

[DaVinci]

It's possible that I associate it with family or christianity.  But I only talk to one of my family members and we've both been atheists since we were young.  We were raised by preachers though and I've always considered the whole christian experience to be fairly traumatic.

 

So how does that relate to writing fiction?

[ragdoll]

So how does that relate to writing fiction?

 

I don't know, that's why I wrote "Does anyone have any ideas as to why these two subjects are/were "blind spots" for me?"

 

The only thoughts I have about it are that christianity is fiction and most of my family were always getting me different fantasy and sci-fi books.

[Pepin]

The first method is by making arguments through your characters. You'd want to give all of the characters motivations and good reasons.

 

My personal method would be on focusing on the measurements the characters make. In a way this gets into how they think and how they perceive the world, but it is a step back, as it allows you to draw your own perception from those particular measurements, and it allows you to understand the character more by understanding their perception of the data. It also allows for reality to be the arbiter between differing measurements.

 

For instance, if you give a description of an interchange between two individuals, you could have two distinct accounts of it. With a liberal minded person, the focus might be on the race, sex, and wealth of the person. With someone who is more libertarian, it is likely to be more on their words and arguments. With someone who is emotional, it is likely to be the body language and how they are feeling about each other. And so on.

 

The idea is that if a character is going to draw some sort of meaning from an event, that you want to describe the base components that are involved in that character's perception. You would also want to compare this to the measurements that other people make of the same or similar event.

 

I think this is useful because it is easy to get lost in high level concepts. I mean, instead of actually figuring out why someone believes something, we say that they believe in justice, that they are for equality, and so on. Sure, explanations are often given, but we so rarely get into the other person's thinking and how their perceive reality.

[DaVinci]

I don't know, that's why I wrote "Does anyone have any ideas as to why these two subjects are/were "blind spots" for me?"

 

The only thoughts I have about it are that christianity is fiction and most of my family were always getting me different fantasy and sci-fi books.

I think only you can answer this question. I can't tell you why you would hear an argument and then forget it when dealing with that subject. That is why I am asking you all these questions.