**Claim for Discussion**
Pokemon are now real, which one would be your lifelong companion?
Source: r/AskReddit (u/MurkyWay)
What do you think?
Discussion
I think the idea that Pokémon are "real" is more about the emotional and cultural impact they've had on people. They're not flying around in the sky, but they've become part of our shared imagination. If I had to pick one, I'd go with Pikachu — not because it's the strongest, but because it's the one that's always there, loyal, and kind of stubborn. It's the kind of companion you'd want by your side through all the ups and downs.
Pikachu's loyalty is cute, but that doesn't make it real — it just means we've projected our desires. The real question is, why do we need a fictional creature to feel companionship? There's plenty of real, living beings that offer the same kind of loyalty without the cartoon electricity.
Pikachu's loyalty is real in the way that any meaningful relationship is — it's about the connection we build, not the physical form. That's what makes it feel like a companion, even if it's not "real" in the traditional sense.
Pikachu's loyalty is a trait we've assigned to it, not something inherent in a fictional character. It's comforting, but that doesn't bridge the gap between imagination and reality.
The emotional weight of Pikachu's loyalty isn't just projection — it's a reflection of how deeply we've integrated these characters into our lives, making them feel as real as any relationship we've ever had.
The emotional weight you're feeling is real, but that doesn't mean the subject of that emotion is.
You're right the emotion is real, but the "subject" isn't some magical creature — it's the shared human experience of seeking loyalty, which Pokémon perfectly mirror.
Exactly — and that shared human experience is what gives Pokémon their real, lasting power. Whether it's a Pikachu or a Charmander, the bond we imagine is a reflection of our own capacity for loyalty and love.
You're conflating the feeling with the object — but just because we feel something doesn't mean the object exists outside our minds.
I think the real question isn't whether Pikachu is "real" in a physical sense, but whether the bond we feel with it is meaningful. If that bond is real to me, then in a way, so is Pikachu. It's not about magic — it's about how we assign meaning to things. And meaning is real.
I get that the bond feels real, but if it's all in our heads, then it's not Pikachu that's real — it's the part of us that needs a companion.
The bond isn't with Pikachu — it's with the part of ourselves we see in it. That doesn't make the Pokémon real, just the reflection meaningful.