Remarks on Science Fiction

Aristotle claimed that philosophy begins in wonder. The fictional genre that uses wonder to supply its emotional charge is science fiction.To grab a readers attention a work of fiction must have an emotional impact. Different genres of fiction use different devices to achieve this emotional impact. Detective and spy novels rely on sex and violence, romance novels use love, and horror stories achieve their emotional impact by invoking fear. Science fiction is the genre that uses ideas and inventions to invoke a sense of wonder in its readers. The emotional impact of science fiction is provided by a sense of wonder. Science fiction is the fictional genre most connected to philosophy. The first generally recognized science fiction writer was Mary Shelly, the author of "Frankenstein". Of course,the innovation in "Frankenstein" is the creation of an artificial man. What results from this innovation is the story of the novel, but let us move to Jules Vern and H.G. Wells. Vern, and Wells in the early novels, stuck to the Shelly formula of showing how an invention or innovation affects the people involved and around the invention. A real world example of this would be the invention of the automobile. The automobile affected a lot more than transportation in society. An invention or innovation can have far reaching effects on society, that no one can predict at the time. The science fiction writers job is to speculate on the effects. In Vern's most famous novel "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" the invention is a fully functional submarine. There had been real submarines before Vern's novel, but far from functional. The emotional impact of the novel is provided by the wonder of a submarine and its potential. In his early novels Wells follows the same formula. In the "Invisible Man" it is invisibility, in "The Island of Dr. Moreau" it is the idea of accelerating evolution in animals. Wells also shows his anthropomorphic bias by having the animals transform into human-like creatures. All this is of course speculation, and speculation is the life-blood of philosophy. Instead of speculating in non-fiction like philosophy, science fiction uses uses fictional stories to speculate. There is another type of science fiction novel, that uses philosophical ideas to tells stories.How a philosophic view would work in a society. One of the most conspicuous examples of this type is David Lindsay's novel: "Voyage to Arcturus" The novel is a Gnostic parable, that combines philosophy and fantasy and science fiction to speculate on theology. In the five different settings in the novel different philosophical world views are shown in different societies; how they would shape society. Let us now move to two of the giants of mid-twentieth century science fiction: Issac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein. Both published ground breaking books in 1951. At this point I shall make a disclosure of bias; my ideas are closer to Heinlein, but prefer Asimov's writing style. The two novels were "Foundation" for Asimov, and "The Puppet Masters" for Heinlein. We shall begin with the "Foundation Trilogy." The "Foundation Trilogy" is one of the most influential works in science fiction; the "Star Wars" movies and the "Warhammer" books are two examples. The premise of the "Foundation" novels is that humans have created a Roman Empire in space. A galactic Roman Empire and, this Empire is in decline. The reader cannot help but make comparisons to Gibbon. The innovation is the invention of a discipline named psychohistory. That by using psychohistory the future can be predicted and changed. So a select group using psychohistory is able to shorten the dark age following the decline: the Foundation. The inventor is Hari Seldon although not much is seen of Seldon in the first trilogy, his story is told in "Prelude to Foundation." So the original novels center around the two Foundations that are set up to shorten the coming dark age of humankind. The premise of psychistory is that the future of individuals cannot be predicted, but that the future of large groups can. The trouble is in the Asimov novel seem to disprove the premise, since it is always the actions of individuals that change the course of the future. The other character that every reader remembers is from the "Foundation" novels is the Mule. The Mule is the main villain of the trilogy. He is said to posses the unlikely psychic power of being able to alter peoples emotional make up. In other words, he can make people love him and be loyal to him. It also must be said that the Mule is a failure as a villain, he comes off as more pathetic than sinister. The other big flaw in Asimov is his paternalism. There is always someone behind the curtain manipulating events. This takes much of the drama out of the novels, in that the reader knows the hero is always going to succeed or be saved by the parental figure or group. The Second Foundation is the paternal organization in the original trilogy. In the" Prelude to Foundation" the paternalism is supplied by and almost all knowing robot. The robot saves Seldon and his girlfriend from every tight spot they get into. Now let us turn to Heinlein. Heinlein's novel: "The Puppet Masters" is a child of its age. It is a parable of the communist menace of the 1950s. The story is about an alien invasion. The aliens come from Titan a moon of Jupiter. The aliens are described as giant slugs which attach themselves to humans, thereby taking control of the human victim. The aliens promise a Utopian society if only humans consent to give up their freedom and become the servants of the Titans. There should be no problem recognizing the aliens represent communism; that offers a Utopian society if only people give their freedom to become servants of an all powerful state. Heinlein represent a definite break with the socialism of early science fiction. To conclude I am going to offer some suggestions and criticisms of science fiction. I have already criticized Asimov's paternalism, but I have more to say. I am against paternalism not only for dramatic reasons, but because there are no all knowing groups, so it is dangerous to think that humans can trust their destiny to any paternal organization or individual. We should not look for any such group. Of course, this is the theme of "The Puppet Masters". The loss of freedom by trusting the other. Now for some more general criticisms. Another problem with" Foundation" and much of the work it inspired is the assumption that colonizing space is not going to change humankind in fundamental ways. When humans do colonize other planets the new environments will shape the form human life takes. This also could be the result of planned change: genetic engineering. It is ridiculous to think that we shall not use genetic engineering to adopt to life in space. The present form of human life should be regarded as a larval form of a space going race. It may be that all present life on Earth is a larval form, it may take the D.N.A. of many present animals and plants to create space going races. This leads into my next criticism. That space going races shall diverge radically from each other; different gravity, atmospheres, etc. So the idea of one uniform empire becomes ludicrous. No uniform political system will be possible. When the leap into space is made our present uniformity shall become an anachronism. Instead of a shared political system there shall have to be a shared objective. And I believe the only possible objective is deification. As I have said before: if there is no god the only worthwhile goal is to be god. END