We’ve all cried over a character’s death, argued about their decisions, admired their courage, or hated their cruelty. Whether it’s Achilles, Dorian Gray, Darth Vader, or Tony Stark, fictional characters have a way of walking off the page or screen and into our minds—and sometimes, into our lives. But here’s the philosophical riddle: if these characters are not “real” in the physical sense, what kind of existence do they have? Can something imaginary shape culture, emotions, or even morality and still be dismissed as “not real”?
Welcome to the rabbit hole of ontological inquiry—a place where Plato’s Forms rub shoulders with Harry Potter, where metaphysics stares into the face of fiction and asks, “Are you real enough?”
I. What Does It Mean to Exist?
Before we can tackle the existence of fictional beings, we need to get clear on what it even means to exist. Philosophers have debated this for centuries. Some argue that to exist is to be physically manifest—to take up space, to have mass, to be located in time. Others take a broader view, seeing existence as multifaceted, layered, and in some ways, independent of physicality.
Take numbers. They don’t exist in space or time, yet they’re indispensable to everything from architecture to quantum physics. So do they exist? Most philosophers would say yes—just not in the same way as, say, a tree or a rock.
In the same spirit, fictional characters may not walk among us physically, but they often occupy mental, emotional, cultural, and even ethical landscapes. Can we then claim they exist, albeit in a different mode?
II. The Metaphysics of Fictional Beings
Philosophers like Saul Kripke and Alexius Meinong have tried to sort out the metaphysical status of fictional entities. Kripke argues that names like “Sherlock Holmes” refer to fictional entities that don’t exist in the same way as real individuals but still hold a certain logical or referential status. Meinong took it further, positing that there are entities that “do not exist” but still have properties. For example, Sherlock Holmes is a detective who lives on Baker Street—even though no such man exists, the description has internal consistency.
These views invite us to consider that fictional beings are “nonexistent objects”—real enough to be talked about, to have attributes, and even to influence the world, yet not real in a material sense.
But here’s where things get complicated: if fictional characters can influence how people behave, what they believe, or how they understand the world, can they still be confined to nonexistence?
III. The Real-World Power of the Imaginary
Let’s move from abstraction to observable impact. Consider political ideologies, or national myths—many of these are built on stories. Stories, not facts, move people. The tale of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods to give it to humans, isn’t “real” in a literal sense. But it influenced Enlightenment thinkers and inspired generations to rebel against tyranny and seek knowledge.
Fictional characters are sometimes more powerful than real ones. Uncle Tom became a symbol of racial subjugation. Hamlet shaped how we talk about indecision and grief. Frankenstein’s monster gave form to our fear of scientific overreach. These characters influence how we understand ourselves and others. In fact, they often feel more real than people we’ve never met.
Think about it—how many of us know the intricacies of Elizabeth Bennet’s thoughts better than those of our neighbors or coworkers? How many people make decisions based on what their favorite fictional characters would do? There’s even a psychological term for it: parasocial relationships—one-sided bonds people form with media figures, including fictional ones.
These relationships can provide comfort, identity, even ethical frameworks. If an entity influences your emotions, your decisions, your worldview—is that not a kind of reality?
IV. Cultural Memory and Fiction as Ontological Anchors
We might also consider how fictional beings are embedded in our collective cultural memory. Figures like Odysseus, King Arthur, and Scheherazade have survived for millennia, passed down through literature, art, and oral storytelling. Their influence has transcended generations, geographies, and even religions. In doing so, they shape what we consider possible, noble, tragic, or heroic.
Such longevity and cultural embedding suggest that fictional beings act as ontological anchors—stable reference points in the ever-shifting sea of cultural identity. They help us articulate values, fears, aspirations, and taboos. In this sense, their mode of existence may not be material, but it is undeniably symbolic, which for many cultures is just as powerful.
V. Fictional Beings in Legal and Technological Realms
Let’s take it one step further. In some societies, fictional characters hold legal status. Corporations have sued others over the depiction of fictional characters, and these characters have been granted intellectual property protections that rival those given to living individuals. Think about Mickey Mouse, a character with more legal representation than most human beings on the planet.
In the digital age, the lines get even blurrier. With the rise of AI, virtual influencers, and immersive storytelling, fictional beings are beginning to behave more like autonomous agents. Some even “interact” with people in real time. Are we on the verge of a new kind of existence—one that isn’t purely fictional or purely real but hybrid?
Imagine a world where Sherlock Holmes not only exists in books but also responds to your messages, walks in virtual environments, and advises you like a mentor. Does he still not exist?
VI. The Emotional and Ethical Dimensions
There’s also a deeply emotional layer to this inquiry. When we say a character “lives on” in our hearts, we’re not just being poetic. We grieve for them. We celebrate them. We learn from them. We often model ourselves after them. For many, fictional beings are emotional touchstones—mirrors for our own inner lives.
Moreover, some fictional beings embody ethical archetypes. Atticus Finch, for instance, is more than a character—he’s a moral ideal. His existence, though fictional, has guided countless readers toward a more nuanced understanding of justice, compassion, and courage.
Is it really fair to say such beings don’t exist when they serve as ethical reference points?
VII. Against Ontological Snobbery
Philosopher David Lewis once argued that fictional characters exist—in possible worlds. According to his modal realism, there are countless universes in which Sherlock Holmes is not just a name but a person walking the streets of a London that is very real there. While this theory is controversial (and sometimes ridiculed), it attempts to dignify fictional beings with a form of existence that avoids ontological snobbery—the assumption that only physical, empirical things are worth taking seriously.
Why do we treat fictional beings as second-class citizens in the realm of existence? Perhaps it’s because we fear the instability that would come from accepting too many forms of reality. But if we’re willing to accept abstract concepts like justice, freedom, and numbers as real, then surely beings who influence billions—albeit through the lens of imagination—deserve a seat at the ontological table.
VIII. Conclusion: A Spectrum of Being
So—do fictional beings exist? The answer may lie not in a binary but in a spectrum. They don’t exist materially, but they do exist emotionally, culturally, ethically, and sometimes even legally and digitally. Their influence is tangible. Their stories shape lives. Their names are carved into the architectures of thought, belief, and identity.
To deny their existence outright is to misunderstand what it means to be. Existence is not merely about atoms and molecules. It’s about meaning, presence, influence, and memory.
Fictional beings might not breathe, but they live. Not in flesh, but in minds. Not in time, but in narrative. And in that way, perhaps they are more real than we ever dared to admit.
Leave A Comment