Fiction and Reality

I.

In our constant and ever-permanent association with our lives, we find ourselves stuck in
what we call as “reality.” But what is reality? It is adequate to assume that there has not been any
universal agreement as to “what is real,” which was more discussed in the modern period by the
rationalists and empiricists. For the rationalists, such as Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz, they
consider reality as all in the mind. On the other hand, empiricists, such as Locke, Berkeley, and
Hume, consider reality as what can be perceived empirically through our experience or senses.
Later on these ideas were synthesized by Kant, and so on, and so forth (an endless dialectic).
But, even if we do not exactly understand what reality is, we can logically claim that what is real
is real. And it is within this so-called reality that we exist as human beings, as persons. It would
be for another discussion to investigate what a “person” is, but there is with very little doubt that
people are, in fact, within interplay of what they think and of what they perceive.

It is within this interplay that people are able to act for themselves or for others, and that
is simply what we consider as freedom – to be able to do what one wills to do. However, the
context of freedom is much broader than that, but as a conventional and non-profound way of
defining what freedom is we may consider that. This leads us to question whether we really are
“free” in this interplay between the self and reality, or more deeply, why am I, why are we here?
The notion of pre-determination is brought out whether we are created to do what we must do as
human beings or this itself contradicts the notion of freedom. To be pre-determined means to
have a fixed endpoint, a fixed purpose to do in this world, but at the same time, to be free means
to have the ability to choose what his purpose is. Must we say that we are pre-determinedly free?
Nevertheless, the course of actions that we take will always lead us to two points – where we
become self-satisfied of what we do, or, on the contrary, unsatisfied.

By satisfaction I mean to say the feeling of being fulfilled, but that would still be quite
vague for a “feeling” alone may lead to ambiguity of what one has really accomplished for
feelings come from senses and the senses cannot be guaranteed to be correct. It would also not be
enough to say that satisfaction is the thought of being fulfilled, for it would only satisfy the
mental aspect of a person and not his whole self. It is not the question of what the “self” is, but
rather, the question of the action of the self or what the self does. The self cannot rely alone on
its senses, nor can it rely alone on its mental aspect of conception, but rather it must rely on both
sensation and conception. As Kant would say, sensation without conception is blind, conception
without sensation is empty. Therefore, satisfaction must be the feeling (from sensation) and
thought (from conception) of being fulfilled. And it is through this fulfillment that one
accomplishes what he was pre-determinedly free to do, his life project. And in some sort we can
consider this as “happiness,” which, to bend Aristotle’s definition, is the full exercise of the vital
rational and empirical powers of man.
 This satisfaction from self-fulfillment, which we may consider as happiness, could be
termed as “self-actualization.” However, because of the countless circumstances that countless
people face, a number are unfortunate enough to be unable to actualize themselves, or it may
take a longer while for them to do so. The fact that we are brought into this world lets us serve
our very own purposes as pre-determinedly free beings, but throughout history, limitations have
arose ironically created by men themselves. This means that because other people have a better
biological capacity than others, they chose to make themselves more superior than others by
creating systems that disables the lesser men to act even in their full capacity. And this I would
like to consider the reason of man as being a greedy animal. This greediness comes from the fact
that man himself is a being that has sensations, urges, but some more than others. It was given to
man a pre-defined degree or level of capacity of a series of emotions that make him want or
desire to do more than others, which leads man to being an envious being of not being able to
have what he desires. This causes him, using his own rational powers to distort and exploit other
people like him, but those with lesser capacities, in order to grow more, and this very action
perverts the idea of him being a human and degrades him into being an “animal,” for he has no
desire to uphold his conceptual satisfaction, but only his sensational satisfaction.

That idea of elitism or egoistic superiority inevitably occurs all throughout history
because as held, man is a rational animal, only some with more capabilities than others and using
those capabilities to extort those with fewer capabilities. A common occurrence would be within
a workplace. The founder and creator of the work recruit those who want to do, and their reason,
for money or even for actuality. After, he then commands those who are under him to work more
than he does only to gain the fruits of their labor for himself, though it is not all the time that they
are extorted, the leader gives out shares, but sometimes, lesser than they worked for. But this
continuity forces those under him to continue working, only to bring satisfaction to the one
whom they are working for. This highlights an insight of Marx’s idea of labor and capitalism.
But should the people revolt against this? Whether they revolt or not, the idea of a higher class
still remains because of greed and envy, which would sum up one’s pride after the acquisition of
what he desires.

Although, because this system of superior labor continues to persist throughout history,
people become aware of the situation they were caught in. They realize that they are victims of,
not only exploitation of goods, but exploitation of the self as being authentic and actualized, only
to be diminished into a working tool. However, because people are free (pre-determinedly), they
have the choice to go against the tides and choose a path for him to be self-actualized
sensationally and conceptually, and attain happiness. But in the meantime, because of this very
realization, he falls into a state of anguish and depreciation of life. Of the numerous definitions
of anguish by other philosophers, I choose to consider anguish as a state of “falling because of
the realization of missing a step.” It is within that moment of realization that we start to regret
what we have been doing, which is to simply put as wasting our time. The depreciation of life
kicks in as it discourages the people to want to do more. However, they will do more, not
because they want to, but because they have to, to fulfill someone else’s satisfaction. It is at this
moment that a person is standing between two roads to either choose to go against it or to find
something that would comfort him as of the moment in his state of anguish and depreciation.

II.

After falling into the state of anguish and depreciation, man may resort to going against
it, but often times he will just fall back into the state he was in because of his hastiness of not
fully realizing the situation with which he is in. Thus, it may be better for man to resort into that
which comforts him as a consolation by giving him time to think and fully realize his own
catastrophic downfall. These consolations may come in many forms, some better than others, but
one deems to be most appropriate, and that is fiction. Fiction must be the most appropriate of all
consolations because it delineates a person from a perspective of reality into a perspective of
make-believe and imagination, which allows him to think of ways on how to deal with reality
itself from the perspective outside of reality by associating metaphorical and figurative
discourses in comparison as to what reality really, is. If we consider things as consolations in line
of reality itself, such as sports or oratorical activities, this may lead us to further anguish because
it still provides the idea of other people wanting to claim power by overpowering the weak.
Therefore, this consolation of fiction then must be done alone, specifically using one’s own vital
powers of rationality, specifically imaginative thinking, to fix the situation.

Even imagination alone, not including fiction, may be able to lead us to think about
solutions to the problems we have, but it is through fiction that we imagine the impossible amidst
the possibilities of reality, and hope that this impossibility may become possible by trying to
incorporate that impossibility of make-believe from fiction into reality, not in a literal way, but in
a more figurative and poetic manner. The “hope” that is mentioned I consider to be closely
inclined to “faith,” which is preparing for unknown, as having the slimmest chance of the ability
to perform the preparation in facing the unknown. It is through this hope of fiction that we may
have faith in re-shaping our own lives in the context of reality.

As fascinating as it may seem, we cannot forever be trapped in the fictional, imaginative world,
otherwise, we would be lost and lose sight of what really was important, which was to recreate
our own lives and find self-fulfillment and happiness.