Once language is possible, stories and fictitious characters may be devised. They exist in that sense but only that sense. There is no Thadeus Goldfarb in the story. He really doesn't exist.

I should also add, fictive characters can embody real characteristics. A character who is a 'hero' would be expected to act in certain ways; if you were the dramatist,then you wouldn't depict your hero as being faint-hearted. That is one of the means by which fiction can communicate truths, even whilst being strictly speaking not about real characters. Mythological and symbolic stories plainly do something likewise. So to that extent what is real and what is merely existent, may not necessarily always coincide.

Harry Potter exists in a certain way, for example as a collection of qualia in our consciousness. Whether he also exists as a concrete person in the physical world depends on whether he and his world are consistently defined. But such a world is apparently not identical to ours.

Inconsistently defined things such as triangular circles do not exist because they have no identity (triangular circle is a circle that is not a circle). They are nothing. We can think about them and our thoughts exist as a collection of qualia, but such thoughts refer to nothing.

Obviously the simple fact is that fictional characters are not real physical people. But the ideas that fictional characters express, and the way an audience interprets their experience of that character exists in the same way that an audience's interpretation of their experience of real people (John Lennon, Ghandi, Dostoevsky) exists. The idea of Harry Potter and the way audiences interpret him have measurable effects on culture and changes that occur in culture in the same way that famous (real) cultural icons have measurable effects on culture and changes that occur in culture. Real cultural icons are "characters" within a cultural narrative. They become symbols of cultural ideas in the same way that fictional characters do. The actual experience of the audience is less black and white than an ontological analysis would assume. And ideas exist within experience, not within an ontological metaphysic.

But if Harry Potter does not exist, how are we able to talk about Harry Potter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

There's a sense of "exist," as well as a sense of "real," senses that were historically popular and that are still commonly found in philosophical talk, that have a connotation of "extramental." So, under these senses, if something is mental-only, it neither exists nor is it real.

Since we know that we understand words with ideas and concepts, the real question is do the physical things which we refer to with words, exist, or is it all just an illusion?

One way to start is to say that Harry Potter is a person we pretend exists, or, better, that we pretend there's a world the novels describe in which Harry Potter exists. I don't exist in that world, and he doesn't exist in this one.

But the expression "Harry Potter" exists in both. In his world, it names a person; in this one, it doesn't. In this world, we use that expression in several ways: to talk about the cultural artifact created by J. K. Rowling, and to talk about Harry "in-world," pretending that his world is real. And we mix those up by saying things like, "On page 35, Harry says he knows who did it."

In the Potterverse, "Harry Potter" is the real, not pretend, name of Harry Potter (it might not have been); it bears the relation is-a-name-of to the object Harry Potter. In our world, although "Harry Potter" is a real expression, it does not bear that relation to any real object. Not a person, anyway. I suppose it's the name of a cultural object. But does it make sense, in our world, to also think of "Harry Potter" as the real name, a name in our world, of a pretend person, a person who happens not to exist in our world?

I don't think so. I think it's part of pretending that the Potterverse is real, to pretend that the linguistic expressions bear the is-a-name-of relation to objects we pretend exist. It's not only the person that's pretend; it's also the relation between that person and his name. That means that statements in our world that use the expression "Harry Potter" where a name would go are either "in-world" or taking about the cultural artifact, and otherwise not well-formed. "Harry Potter does not exist," is not actually a statement, because "Harry Potter" as used here is not actually a name.

One can watch Harry Potter, and need not be inside of anyone's imagination. Any criterion for existence that requires no imaginative elements is fraught.

The problem is simple:

Person 1: "A does not exist".

Person 2: "If A does not exist, how are you able to talk about A?"

It's easy enough to form expressions that seem to refer to something, like "the millions in my bank account." If you substitute that expression for one that does refer to something, say, "the dozens in my bank account," you can form sentences that seem to be about something that isn't. But they aren't. At least if you understand "about" in the most natural way.

I disagree with that. I can't imagine what the shape of triangular circle is like, but I can imagine the concept. And that is the case for imaginary things as well, isn't it? They don't and can't exist, but we can imagine the concept. Therefore triangular circles exist as well in similar way.

Another thing to consider would be whether it's possible for triangular circle to physically exist (yes) but that's completely another topic of discussion, and might deserve its own thread.

The problem is not being addressed by the responses here.

Everything exists. It is a question of what form it exists in (only in people's imaginations; as an autonomous physical being; etc.).

Or is there something that absolutely--in no way, shape or form--does not exist? Is it possible to categorically not exist? If it is possible to categorically not exist, how do we know? If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it?

Just trolling along:

If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it?

Invent a new category, such as virtual reality.

"If A does not exist, how are you able to talk about A?" — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Here is a hypothesis:

(1) If something does not exist, then we cannot talk about it.

It has a contrapositive:

(2) If you can talk about something, then it exists.

I believe (2) can easily be shown to be false, and I believe I have done so in this thread. Therefore (1) is false as well.

If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Here is a different hypothesis:

(3) if something is impossible, then we cannot talk about it.

Its contrapositive would be:

(4) If we can talk about something, then it is possible.

It may very well be that the current consensus among philosophers is that (4) is true, because possible world semantics. I'm not in love with PWS, and lean toward (4) being false. "There's no ball of ice at the center of the Sun," feels to me like a statement that cannot possibly be false. Does anything turn on whether that statement is about the non-existent ball of ice?

EDIT: This is silly. Obviously people who make regular use of PWS talk about impossibility too. It just annoys me for some reason. Unnecessary aspersions on the character of PWS hereby retracted.

The Invisible Pink Uniform categorically exists, and will judge all doubters most severely in the afterlife.

Autocorrect or heretic?

Autocategorical.

Invisible Pink Uniform — Marchesk

infidel

infidel — Srap Tasmaner

I am eternally damned! But I may have just coined an alternative IPU into existence. Maybe it will save me.

I am eternally damned! What did I do? — Marchesk

I tried to help you.

You can edit your own post, but I will require some consideration to edit mine that documents your weakness.

Weird how some forums don't show edited information. I must have changed it as you replied.

I saw the edit. Your new IPU is make-believe and you know it. Admit your failing, pay the indulgence, and we'll take you back. Oh, there's also a lecture tour where you tell the story of your fall and redemption. And maybe a book. Yes, we will require a book. But that's all.

Harry Potter does not exist, we are told. Harry Potter is a fiction; Harry Potter is our imagination, the thinking goes.

But if Harry Potter does not exist, how are we able to talk about Harry Potter?

Harry Potter does not exist outside of our imaginations? Okay. But that is different than saying that Harry Potter does not exist, period.

Everything exists, right? The question is what form it exists in (as a concrete being; only as an abstraction in our minds; etc.), right?

Or do things categorically not exist? If so, how? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree.

I shall write a book, alright. Detailing the abuses and lies of the original IPU church, and how it lost it's way. I will redeem myself by starting a new church. The IPU was never the IPU, but rather the new IPU.

You sure you want to go down this road? I can dispatch a team before you get your agent on the phone.

You've left me no choice but to leak this to the BBC, The New Trump Times, and The Daily Prophet (just in case).

We categorically deny that you were ever a member of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's all lies! Lies and falsehoods! And innuendoes! Icky ones, with little thingies growing on them.

We categorically deny that you were ever a member of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It's all lies! Lies and falsehoods! And innuendoes! Icky ones, with little thingies growing on them. — Srap Tasmaner

My new church will categorically deny that categorical is necessary for existence. That is the great lie the the followers of the false IPU (which OP is clearly one) has propagated upon humanity.

But if Harry Potter does not exist, how are we able to talk about Harry Potter? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

We are able to speak about imaginary objects because language transcends reality.

I think the error you are making is that you are confusing the possibility of the existence of Harry Potter, with the existence of a possible Harry Potter.

"If A does not exist, how are you able to talk about A?" — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Here is a hypothesis:

(1) If something does not exist, then we cannot talk about it.

It has a contrapositive:

(2) If you can talk about something, then it exists.

I believe (2) can easily be shown to be false, and I believe I have done so in this thread. Therefore (1) is false as well... — Srap Tasmaner

No, that does not address the question of the possibility of something categorically not existing, which is the context that my words you quote came from.

If something categorically does not exist, how are we able to talk about it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Here is a different hypothesis:

(3) if something is impossible, then we cannot talk about it.

Its contrapositive would be:

(4) If we can talk about something, then it is possible.

It may very well be that the current consensus among philosophers is that (4) is true, because possible world semantics. I'm not in love with PWS, and lean toward (4) being false. "There's no ball of ice at the center of the Sun," feels to me like a statement that cannot possibly be false. Does anything turn on whether that statement is about the non-existent ball of ice?

EDIT: This is silly. Obviously people who make regular use of PWS talk about impossibility too. It just annoys me for some reason. Unnecessary aspersions on the character of PWS hereby retracted. — Srap Tasmaner

No.

I have been repeatedly talking about something that may be impossible: categorical non-existence. So that is not the issue.

The question is if it is possible for something to in no way, shape, form, constitution, state, etc. exist.

The statement "A does not exist, period" is contradictory. A must exist in some way, because a person is making a statement about it.

Statements like "A does not exist outside of people's imaginations" or "A exists only as an arrangement of neurons in certain people's brains" make sense. But "A does not exist, period" does not make sense. It does not exist, but you are able to put in in a sentence?