Saying Plato is "just asking questions" seems like a cop-out, he's responsible for what he implies, whatever character he makes say it. How about the allegory of the cave? The roots of fallibilism could be traced to that allegory - except for the part about philosophers, who are the ones who have escaped the cave and have seen the sun, implying that they gain access to the absolute truth.

▲

dcre 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

If two characters express contradictory ideas, which side is Plato's? And even when there is not a clear contradiction it is not at all straightforward to decide what is being claimed. It's not an encyclopedia. It is written to be interpreted.

▲

soulofmischief 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is every author who wishes to convey certain messages to their audience through narrative also responsible for every single thing his characters say? Character-driven narrative would seem to be at odds with such a view.

▲

jjmarr 12 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, that's why modern literature and media dealing with diverse opinions are terrible now.

You are expected to caricature and refute people saying "bad" opinions in the work itself since otherwise the reader could believe in those opinions. Leaving something open to interpretation is tantamount to endorsement.

	▲	dcre 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		There is obviously a lot of space between the two extremes "every opinion is the author's" and "we shouldn't take seriously anything authors write".

▲

card_zero 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I was wondering about that too. But what I mean by "responsibility" is that the ideas presented have a definite form and don't get to evade criticism by being mercurial and shape-shifting. Not sure about art, like fiction. I'm not seeking to prevent authors from being ambiguously provocative, but it's a crappy way to reason.