[Edits added to make meaning clear.]
I am still not clear on your meaning. I think this is worth pursuing because there are several aspiring fiction writers in the audience.
So, you believe that a fiction writer should make every work of fiction explicitly philosophical. That much is clear to me, from what you have said. What I don’t understand is why you think it is “better.” One reason explicitly philosophical (“ideational”) fiction is better for some readers is because they can learn from it. Another reason that approach is better for some readers is that artistically it is a more difficult and therefore a more admirable work of art.
Still, the word “better” invites a question: Better for whom?
My main purpose in reading fiction is not to learn philosophy, but to – for a few moments, hours, or days – live in another world, a world throughly integrated, thoroughly dramatized in breath-taking conflict, and exciting, unlike some parts of daily life are for everyone. Consequently, I usually read popular fiction for the adventure of it, in various forms. I very seldom read “serious” fiction, because most of it is as dull as it is explicitly ideational. There are exceptions: Ayn Rand’s writings, obviously, but also, lower on the scale, such works as Heart of Pagan by Andy Bernstein and the Sparrowhawk series by Edward Cline. (The novels of Victor Hugo are superbly written, overall, but I can’t stand the endings, so I have stopped reading them.)
In summary, I read fiction to experience a stylized reality that appeals to me. Part of that, for me, is seeing passionate valuers achieve success (even if I don’t always agree with their value choices). That is why I often prefer pop-fiction by Robert Parker, Patricia Cornwell (Scarpetta series only), and others such as Rex Stout, Agatha Christie, and Louis L’Amour.
So, philosophical fiction isn’t always better, for every reader. But yes, if carried off well, it is the highest form of the art.
I don’t mean they are better because they teach you things.
Also, did you know that David Eddings and JRR Tolkien have both said that NO author can ecape putting his philoshophy in his books to at least a small degree, at least by accident, which is why they didn’t try to avoid doing so and why they deliberately put a little in. So in short every book has at least a little philiosophy of the author in it. The most common accidental method is that the author makes it so that the main character(s) believe as he/she does in at least some areas. Of course this is also a common deliberate way.
Also i also read fiction books so that I can escape to a different world, but I prefer ones that have both philosophy and adventure, which is why terry Goodking is my favourite author. He does the best of both ways in his Sword of Truth books by my opinion.
Also I didn’t mean that one way was “best for anyone”, only that I believe books are made better by its presence.