Philosophically speaking, can something be fake yet not be fictional, or fictional yet not be fake?

Yes. A toy snake is a fake snake but is not fictional nor imaginary.

Half a bee, philosophically, must ipso facto half not be. Now that's deep.

Not exactly.

Fake is pretend, like a teddy bear, or imitation furs; fictional is absent (or contrary to) factual proof of its existence, like most of the characters people pray to. 

First, it depends on your philosophy. I'd assert that fakes and fictional are never and cannot be synonymous.

Second - the better the verisimilitude in a story, the better the fiction works.
Consider a story you know well and love, E. A. Poe's "The Cask of Amontillado."
If we've never appreciated the delights of a special wine, or known of the intense passion for a particular brew that some people have, we would not know how such a taste could lead us unwittingly into danger. 
Each element of realism (mimicry of real life,) comes together to make the story plausible. It's this that allows us to recognise and understand the motives and plans of the narrator when they're finally revealed.
Great fiction carries perennial truths about human nature in it's themes, characterisation and consequences.
I would not call that fake.

On the other hand, there's nothing fictional about fake leather or other fake substances. As fakes, they really do exist.




This post was edited by inky at May 3, 2020 5:42 AM MDT

When I think of  fiction or fictional,  I think of a book or written stories. 
When I think of fake, I think of not real. A horse model but not the horse.

To me, one word represents words of a page. They are images I create in my mind formed by words another person has given me.

The other is about something I can touch and is in the physical world. I don't just use my mind or imagination.  I use my senses.