I do not wish to downplay or minimize the value of fiction by any means. However, I certainly do no think we should overstate it either. Fiction is a method or medium by which we can communicate, and the purpose of that communication can, and does, vary widely. Not all fiction is about revealing universal truths about the cosmos. And whatever the authors purpose, not all authors present a work of value. The author may wholly miss the mark in capturing something 'true' about the human condition. Sometimes they can be just plain wrong.
I agree with you.
The comments above address the topic of the psychological and emotional needs of individuals, which are very specific to each individual and are shaped and influenced by a large number of factors.
That being said, in all cases, whichever fictional religious myth they become attached to, they will have been given that myth, indoctrinated and socialized to that myth.
Not necessarily. People seek new myths, and new ways of interpreting old myths all the time. And not because anyone else "indoctrinated" them. We humans are often seeking new ways of grasping the truth of things. And when we find such a 'revelation', we usually want to share it with others. And mythical stories are an effective way of doing that. We are social creatures after all.
As there are many different fictions that engender this behavior, it seems to be less about specific fictional elements and more about how those fictions are conditioned to intertwine with emotional needs.
Well, of course. But that's true of anything, not just our fictional stories. Everything we do and encounter in life becomes entangled with our emotional needs. Just as our emotions are entangled with our physical needs; which are entangled with our circumstances, and so on.
My conclusion here is that we need not be wedded to any specific fiction, and in fact, may be able to meet the emotional needs by socializing to non-fictional concepts and ideas, thus avoiding becoming locked into cultural fictions that really only fit a particular moment in the evolution of society and culture.
Many things are possible. But most of them are never going to happen. People take in these myths and interpret them according to their needs. And when they no longer find them useful, they will forget them and/or look for new myths that they find to be more effective. This is all a good thing. You act like because people need God, and religion, and myth, and ritual, and so on, that these things are bad. Or they're bad because you think you have found a better or more effective way of dealing with those needs. But none of this is relevant. Because you are not them. And they are not you.
I am not religious. I have no need of anything religion has to offer. But I understand that I am not anyone else, and they are not me. Other people do have use for religion, and so choose to be religious; as they should be. I do not pretend that any myth is a historical fact, mostly because I have no need to hold onto such a pretense. It's irrelevant to me. But I am not anyone else, and they are not me. So some people do feel the need to hold onto that kind of pretense. And when I encounter them I think; "so be it". Because it's their life and their choice and their need being met. Not mine.
I like myths for what I can learn from them about myself, about life, and about humanity. But I'm an artist, so I tend to have a lot of curiosity about how we humans represent our experience of being human, to others. The mechanics of it, and the creativity in it. I love popular music for the same reason, and to a lesser extent, theater and movies (too many cooks tend to water these down, in my opinion). But again, I am just me. Other people engage with these forms of human expression for their own reasons. And it's not for me to determine the legitimacy of their reasoning, using my reasoning.
And Donald Trump would be an example of someone for whom factuality is not a big deal. Do you see the problem?
That problem is much deeper than a disregard of factuality. That problem lay in WHY those people are choosing to disregard factuality in favor of myth, and in the specific myth they have chosen to hold onto.
Fiction is a double-edged sword. The same medium used to explore and understand the human condition can also be used to manipulate and deceive.
And a hammer can be used to build a house, or to kill a child. It's not the fiction (myth), nor the hammer that is the problem, here. Nor is it people holding on too tightly to these tools. The problems are deeper and more specific then that.
What is propaganda other than crafting a fictional narrative intertwining truth, half-truths, and lies, with the intent of engaging emotionally to influence or persuade a population towards a specific agenda.
We call that "advertising" now days,
and even though we're drowning in it 24-7, most of us still don't believe a word of it. (Unless we really want to.)
All fiction is not unequivocally good. As such, it would seem to me that it would be prudent to have some mechanism by which one can remain grounded, to engage and enjoy fiction to the fullest extent, yet remain critical and discerning.
Good luck with that.
I have no problem, really, characterizing our knowledge or understanding of the world as a subjective ideological consensus. I would only reiterate that I strongly assert that there is an objective reality, and that our subjective ideological consensus is a continually improving picture or understanding of that objective reality.
If that were true our "continually improving picture or understanding of" it would be part of it, and dissolve into it. Ending the illusion that "objective" means not subjective: ... not what we think, ... something other than what we think.
I think that's great. My only caveat would be that the universal ideals come from the authors themselves, come from us.
It all "comes from us". It all "is us". We are metaphysical beings living in a physical world. Wondering how and why we are here.
