Fictions as Heuristic Tools—Toward an Understanding of Agency as the Foundation of Human and Linguistic Rights in the Curriculum

  • Beatrice Sasha KobowEmail author


This chapter examines fictions as a heuristic tool in the learning of STEM–STEAM, which has been neglected in its epistemic relevance. Fictions are pragmatically relevant and action-guiding. Importantly, they facilitate insights into the structure of agency. Considering Walton’s ‘Mimesis as Make-believe’ and its recent application in a discourse on model-making, I take the intentional–representational aspect of fictions to be one key of this epistemic point. Vaihinger’s ‘Philosophy of the As-if’ highlights the pragmatic agential purpose of fictions as a form of judgment. Taking these insights from Walton and Vaihinger, I argue that fictions promote an understanding of agency. Understanding agency is a fundamental right, which is foundational for linguistic rights in education and needs to be implemented in educational contexts. A reconsideration of the foundations of our curriculum with a view toward human flourishing will focus on different heuristic tools, such as fictions, which foster an understanding of agency.


  1. Anscombe, E. (1957). Intention. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  2. Appiah, K. A. (2017). As-If: Idealization and ideals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouriau, C. (2013). Le ‘comme-ci’—Kant. Les Éditions du CERF, Paris: Vaihinger et le Fictionalisme.Google Scholar
  4. Castoriadis, C. (1997). Fait et à faire. Éditions du Seuil. Paris: Les carrefours du labyrinthe V.Google Scholar
  5. Ceynowa, K. (1993). Zwischen Pragmatismus und Fiktionalismus—Hans Vaihingers ‘Die Philosophie des Als-ob’. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.Google Scholar
  6. Danto, A. (1981). The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universtiy Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fine, A. (1993). Fictionalism. Midwest Studies Philosophy, 18(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frigg, R. (2010). Models and Fiction. Synthese, 172, 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabriel, G. (2014). Fiktion und Fiktionalismus. Zur Problemgeschichte des ‘Als-ob’’. In M. Neuber (Ed.), Fiktion und Fiktionalismus—Beiträge zu Hans Vaihingers Philosophie des Als-ob (pp. 65–87). Königshausen/Neumann: Würzburg.Google Scholar
  10. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Models and fictions in science. Philosophical Studies, 143, 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2013). Dewey and the question of realism. Nous. Scholar
  12. Iser, W. (1991). Das Fiktive und das Imaginäre. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  13. Kambartel, F. (1989). Über die Gelassenheit. Zum vernünftigen Umgang mit dem Unverfügbaren. In Kambartel F, Philosophie der humanen Welt, Abhandlungen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 90–100.Google Scholar
  14. Price, H. (2003). Truth as convenient friction. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(4), 167–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mäki, U. (1980). Vaihinger on fictions in science. In I. Patoluoto, M. Sintonen, & L. Taiminen (Eds.), Semi-ramistic studies (pp. 32–37). Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
  16. Nietzsche, F. (1887). Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, Kritische Studienausgabe (Vol. 3). Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  17. Ogden, C. K. (1932). Bentham’s theory of fictions. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Salis, F. (Ed). (2016). Scientific fiction-making. The Monist 99(3).Google Scholar
  19. Searle, J. R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  20. Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the social world. New York: OU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stekeler-Weithofer, P. (2004). Was heißt Denken? Bonn: Bonn University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Suarez, M. (Ed.). (2008). Fictions in science—philosophical essays on modelling and idealization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Vaihinger, H. (1922). Die Philosophie des Als-Ob. Leipzig: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
  24. Walton, K. (1993). Mimesis as make-believe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  2. 2.Kulturwissenschaftliches Kolleg at the University of KonstanzConstanceGermany

Personalised recommendations