In
Die Philosophie des Als Ob (''
The Philosophy of 'As if''', 1911), Vaihinger argued that human beings can never really know the underlying reality of the world, and that as a result people construct systems of thought and then assume that these match reality: they behave "as if" the world matches their models. In particular, he used examples from the physical sciences, such as
protons,
electrons, and
electromagnetic waves. None of these phenomena have been observed directly, but science assumes and pretends that they exist, and uses observations made on these assumptions to create new and better constructs. In the preface to the English edition of his work, Vaihinger expressed his
principle of fictionalism: "An idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and therewith its falsity, is admitted, is not for that reason practically valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical nullity[,] may have great practical importance." Fictions in this sense, however, Vaihinger considers to be only "half-fictions or semi-fictions". Rather, "real fictions" are those that "are not only in contradiction with reality but self-contradictory in themselves; the concept of the atom, for example, or the '
Ding an sich'." However, the two types "are not sharply divided from one another but are connected by transitions. Thought begins with slight initial deviations from reality (half-fictions), and, becoming bolder and bolder, ends by operating with constructs that are not only opposed to the facts but are self-contradictory."
Frank Kermode's
The Sense of an Ending (1967) was an early mention of Vaihinger as a useful methodologist of narrativity. He says that "literary fictions belong to Vaihinger’s category of 'the consciously false.' They are not subject, like hypotheses, to proof or disconfirmation, only, if they come to lose their operational effectiveness, to neglect." Later,
James Hillman developed both Vaihinger and Adler's work with psychological fictions into a core theme of his work
Healing Fiction in which he makes one of his more accessible cases for identifying the tendency to literalize, rather than "see through our meanings", with neurosis and madness. ==Critical reception and legacy==