0
   

Definition of Reality

 
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 01:21 pm
@comdragon,
comdragon;122167 wrote:
A being experiences reality through the stream of time. Reality is the illusion of existence that occurs as a result of experiencing time.


So an oasis is the illusion of existence as a result of experiencing time? I never realized that. So, what is a mirage?
0 Replies
 
prothero
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 08:16 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122154 wrote:
What is real is what is not imaginary (like a mirage): Or not fake, like an artificial diamond. .
Is my subjective experience "real"?. An artificial diamond is "real", it is just not
a "real diamond". So are those the only two catagories "real" and "imaginary"?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 08:38 pm
@comdragon,
comdragon;122167 wrote:
A being experiences reality through the stream of time. Reality is the illusion of existence that occurs as a result of experiencing time.

Space and time are the parameters of all experience...If it did not happen where and when, it did not happen..
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:36 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;122171 wrote:
For simplicity, let me phrase Reality as that which exists or appears to exists without any perception, reasoning or prediction attributed to its past, present and future existence.


... unfortunately, such a definition would render Fido's "Moral Reality" an oxymoron ... it also seems to position perception itself, reason itself, etc., as being somehow outside of Reality ...
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 11:51 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke;122308 wrote:
... unfortunately, such a definition would render Fido's "Moral Reality" an oxymoron ... it also seems to position perception itself, reason itself, etc., as being somehow outside of Reality ...



Moral Reality by itslef is an oxymoron.

Perception and reasoning is not reality.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 12:07 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
It all depends on what we want to call "reality". If reality is that which will not pass away, then the only thing we possess that meet that description is Love. Perhaps faith, hope and love. Well I guess only those things of the spirit.
jeeprs
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 05:55 am
@housby,
To start with, 'a definition' is to explain one thing in terms of another. So in the broadest sense, reality is not really definable. So as Kethil says, in some way it is a trick question.

But I could say, in a dictionary sense, 'reality is that which is not illusory' or 'is the absence of delusion or false judgement' - as some have noted. This would be a useful definition most of the time. It would be a satisfactory conventional definition.

But there is something else to consider. In many streams of classical philosophy, and certainly in many religious and spiritual philosophies, 'reality' is that which is 'obscured by ignorance'. In this sense, 'reality' is the vision of the world from the viewpoint of one who is 'saved' or 'gone beyond' or 'free in this life' ('jivanmukti'). This is perhaps also the gist of Plato's metaphor of the Cave, in which he says that most mortals are unknowingly trapped in a shadowy realm, from which the Philosopher, by adherence to the philosophic life and exercise of reason (in the very special sense that Plato understood that word) was able to ascend into the light of day (=reality in the higher sense).

Now from the viewpoint of the traditional philosophies, what most people call 'reality' is actually illusory in some respects. I think the broadest sense in which this is true according to the traditions is that our perception of reality is conditioned by our largely unconscious sense of 'I' and 'mine'. Certainly in Buddhism and the Indian religious philosophies generally, this sense of separate self-hood, which is the common lot of man, is understood to be illusory - 'maya' in the Hindu traditions or 'samsara' in Buddhism. But of course it is very hard to apprehend what they mean by this, because it is obviously difficult to form a picture from outside of it, as it were, as to all intents and purposes it is all that we know - according to them, we are situated within it.

However all of this is in the area of 'traditional studies', 'comparitive religion, and 'philosophy of religion', not really in the area of philosophy of language, or modern Western philosophy.
Owen phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:02 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;122318 wrote:
Moral Reality by itslef is an oxymoron.

Perception and reasoning is not reality.



Perception and reasoning are indeed part of 'that which exists' (reality), if mind exists.
Perception and reasoning, are the only way that existence can be confirmed.
Without mind there is no perception or reasoning.

We know that 'x exists', only if we can show its truth.
That there are existent things in the absense of mind is a belief.
We can reason, now, that there must have been existent things before there was mind, but we cannot know it without mind.

Most of what we call knowledge is in reality belief.
Knowledge is confirmed belief.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:14 am
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;122318 wrote:
Moral Reality by itslef is an oxymoron.

Perception and reasoning is not reality.

Moral reality is not an Oxymoron... If you consider the great break of theology with philosophy in the Middle ages what you are seeing in fact is the breach between physics and morality...That is what we have with our lives, reality, which can be sensed, and so measured, which is the subject of physics; and then we have our problematic world of morals, which seem at first glance to be entirely subjective, and made up entirely of infinites...It is this world, where potentially every question is a moral question that most threatens our existence in the physical world...

Perception and reasoning is part of the physical reality...Reason applies to the physical world as it does not apply to the moral...Perception requires mankind as an active participant in their existence...We must be real before reality can be real...No line can be drawn between nature, and mankind...
0 Replies
 
housby
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;122138 wrote:
Of course. Science relies on evidence. What else should it rely on? How can we prove anything without logic and evidence? Your thinking "outside of the box" is just thinking we can prove something without having to prove it. That kind of thinking "outside of the box" is thinking outside of logic (whatever that would be) since to suppose you can prove something without having to prove it is self-contradictory. It is like supposing that you can eat without eating, or walk without walking. You cannot do something without doing it .

I think you're missing my point, Kenneth. You seem to be taking my argument to attempt to prove me wrong by agreeing with me. Of course science relies on evidence, nobody could ever disagree with that. Logic must always be of paramount importance. My thinking outside the box is not trying to prove something without proving it, it is trying to prove the existence of the box itself, which would in turn strengthen any conclusion arrived at as a result. If it is thinking outside of logic (and it possibly could be) so is trying to imgagine where space ends, or time, or anything of an infinite nature. Infinity isn't logical to the limitations of the human mind but we know it "exists" because we see it every time we look at the night sky. The point is that any kind of proof is an infinte regression, how do we know that the rock on which we build our proofs is itself firm.
As I have said many times, I have no answers, I am just asking questions. Perhaps the question has no answer, any more than finding the "edge of space", but it is a relevant question. Of course you're right with your last sentence, it equates to "just do it" I suppose, but there are always doubts and questions beyond questions.

---------- Post added 01-25-2010 at 01:34 PM ----------

prothero;122148 wrote:
...."reality" has no meaning other than the definition we give to it. Our conception of what is "real" is bound up with our notions of many other metaphysical problems.
Rationalism/empiricism/phenomenology
truth/knowledge/experience
realism/idealism


Agreed, and as such so are "proofs".
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:41 am
@prothero,
prothero;122289 wrote:
Is my subjective experience "real"?. An artificial diamond is "real", it is just not
a "real diamond". So are those the only two catagories "real" and "imaginary"?


An artificial diamond isn't imaginary. An artificial diamond is a real artificial diamond. But it is not a real diamond, of course. It depends on whether the adjective "real" appears before or after the substantive ("diamond"). To say that "this is a real diamond" is to deny that it is fake or artificial. But to say that "this diamond is real" is to deny that it is imaginary or hallucinatory. The term, "real" is quite tricky.
0 Replies
 
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:33 am
@housby,
housby wrote:

Of course you're right with your last sentence, it equates to "just do it" I suppose, but there are always doubts and questions beyond questions.


But ask yourself: Do you have any good reason to question, or are you just questioning for the sake of questioning?

Quote:

The point is that any kind of proof is an infinte regression, how do we know that the rock on which we build our proofs is itself firm.


At some point you just have to go with what is most reasonable. And you should temper this understanding with the acknowledgment that we don't hold absolute certainty. But our not holding absolute certainty does not mean you shouldn't trust things. Again, be reasonable.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:40 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;122321 wrote:
It all depends on what we want to call "reality". If reality is that which will not pass away, then the only thing we possess that meet that description is Love. Perhaps faith, hope and love. Well I guess only those things of the spirit.


I once passed away, but I was real, anyway. And what made be pass away was a thing of the spirit. Jack Daniels.
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:43 am
@housby,
housby;122365 wrote:
If it is thinking outside of logic (and it possibly could be) ...


... and arguably has to be - Godel proved that all formal systems are incomplete, and the way he proved this was by demonstrating that formal Number Theory was incapable of proving obvious truths about itself ... Schopenhauer sketches out a version of Godel's proof (over a hundred years before Godel):

Quote:
To seek a proof for the Principle of Sufficient Reason, is, moreover, an especially flagrant absurdity, which shows a want of reflection. Every proof is a demonstration of the reason for a judgment which has been pronounced, and which receives the predicate true in virtue precisely of that demonstration. This necessity for a reason is exactly what the Principle of Sufficient Reason expresses. Now if we require a proof of it, or, in other words, a demonstration of its reason, we thereby already assume it to be true, nay, we found our demand precisely upon that assumption, and thus we find ourselves involved in the circle of exacting a proof of our right to exact a proof.
housby;122365 wrote:
Infinity isn't logical to the limitations of the human mind ...


... but may still in fact be the logical conclusion of the limitations of the human mind ... that is, if our conceptions of space and time are representations of Reality, and just as subjective as any other of our evolved representations of Reality, then "infinity" could turn out to merely be a logical artifact of the representation (and not an actual property of Reality) ...
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 09:44 am
@jeeprs,
jeeprs;122345 wrote:
To start with, 'a definition' is to explain one thing in terms of another. So in the broadest sense, reality is not really definable. So as Kethil says, in some way it is a trick question.

But I could say, in a dictionary sense, 'reality is that which is not illusory' or 'is the absence of delusion or false judgement' - as some have noted. This would be a useful definition most of the time. It would be a satisfactory conventional definition.

But there is something else to consider. In many streams of classical philosophy, and certainly in many religious and spiritual philosophies, 'reality' is that which is 'obscured by ignorance'. In this sense, 'reality' is the vision of the world from the viewpoint of one who is 'saved' or 'gone beyond' or 'free in this life' ('jivanmukti'). This is perhaps also the gist of Plato's metaphor of the Cave, in which he says that most mortals are unknowingly trapped in a shadowy realm, from which the Philosopher, by adherence to the philosophic life and exercise of reason (in the very special sense that Plato understood that word) was able to ascend into the light of day (=reality in the higher sense).

Now from the viewpoint of the traditional philosophies, what most people call 'reality' is actually illusory in some respects. I think the broadest sense in which this is true according to the traditions is that our perception of reality is conditioned by our largely unconscious sense of 'I' and 'mine'. Certainly in Buddhism and the Indian religious philosophies generally, this sense of separate self-hood, which is the common lot of man, is understood to be illusory - 'maya' in the Hindu traditions or 'samsara' in Buddhism. But of course it is very hard to apprehend what they mean by this, because it is obviously difficult to form a picture from outside of it, as it were, as to all intents and purposes it is all that we know - according to them, we are situated within it.

However all of this is in the area of 'traditional studies', 'comparitive religion, and 'philosophy of religion', not really in the area of philosophy of language, or modern Western philosophy.


I prefer a "conventional definition" that makes sense, and that reports the way that the word to be defined is used by speakers of the language, than an unconventional definition that makes no sense, and has noting to do with how speakers of the language use the term. How about you?
cws910
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:27 pm
@kennethamy,
Just thought I'd say that; a definition consists of words, and words are a fragment of reality, so you could define the part of reality that we inhabit, but that would no more describe the totality of reality than a square would a rectangle.
Zetherin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:35 pm
@cws910,
cws910;122474 wrote:
Just thought I'd say that; a definition consists of words, and words are a fragment of reality, so you could define the part of reality that we inhabit, but that would no more describe the totality of reality than a square would a rectangle.


One need not describe the totality of reality (whatever that means) to define what it means to be real.
0 Replies
 
Jackofalltrades phil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 01:59 pm
@housby,
Amperage;122321 wrote:
It all depends on what we want to call "reality". If reality is that which will not pass away, then the only thing we possess that meet that description is Love. Perhaps faith, hope and love. Well I guess only those things of the spirit.


jeeprs;122345 wrote:
To start with, 'a definition' is to explain one thing in terms of another. So in the broadest sense, reality is not really definable. So as Kethil says, in some way it is a trick question.

But I could say, in a dictionary sense, 'reality is that which is not illusory' or 'is the absence of delusion or false judgement' - as some have noted. This would be a useful definition most of the time. It would be a satisfactory conventional definition.

But there is something else to consider. In many streams of classical philosophy, and certainly in many religious and spiritual philosophies, 'reality' is that which is 'obscured by ignorance'. In this sense, 'reality' is the vision of the world from the viewpoint of one who is 'saved' or 'gone beyond' or 'free in this life' ('jivanmukti'). This is perhaps also the gist of Plato's metaphor of the Cave, in which he says that most mortals are unknowingly trapped in a shadowy realm, from which the Philosopher, by adherence to the philosophic life and exercise of reason (in the very special sense that Plato understood that word) was able to ascend into the light of day (=reality in the higher sense).

Now from the viewpoint of the traditional philosophies, what most people call 'reality' is actually illusory in some respects. I think the broadest sense in which this is true according to the traditions is that our perception of reality is conditioned by our largely unconscious sense of 'I' and 'mine'. Certainly in Buddhism and the Indian religious philosophies generally, this sense of separate self-hood, which is the common lot of man, is understood to be illusory - 'maya' in the Hindu traditions or 'samsara' in Buddhism. But of course it is very hard to apprehend what they mean by this, because it is obviously difficult to form a picture from outside of it, as it were, as to all intents and purposes it is all that we know - according to them, we are situated within it.

However all of this is in the area of 'traditional studies', 'comparitive religion, and 'philosophy of religion', not really in the area of philosophy of language, or modern Western philosophy.


Owen;122348 wrote:
Perception and reasoning are indeed part of 'that which exists' (reality), if mind exists.
Perception and reasoning, are the only way that existence can be confirmed.
Without mind there is no perception or reasoning.

We know that 'x exists', only if we can show its truth.
That there are existent things in the absense of mind is a belief.
We can reason, now, that there must have been existent things before there was mind, but we cannot know it without mind.

Most of what we call knowledge is in reality belief.
Knowledge is confirmed belief.


Fido;122353 wrote:
Moral reality is not an Oxymoron... If you consider the great break of theology with philosophy in the Middle ages what you are seeing in fact is the breach between physics and morality...That is what we have with our lives, reality, which can be sensed, and so measured, which is the subject of physics; and then we have our problematic world of morals, which seem at first glance to be entirely subjective, and made up entirely of infinites...It is this world, where potentially every question is a moral question that most threatens our existence in the physical world...

Perception and reasoning is part of the physical reality...Reason applies to the physical world as it does not apply to the moral...Perception requires mankind as an active participant in their existence...We must be real before reality can be real...No line can be drawn between nature, and mankind...



I apologise for not being able to deal with each of those responses seperately.

We are dealing with 'Reality'. The reality is that English language and its words has serious limitations, and one being its inability to gather diffrenent nuances of life, matter, human communictaion, emotions and knowledge with independent terminology. It is a great handicap in Philosophy. However, the only defense English as a language has that it is truly universal, and also teh fact that other languages also has their drawbacks. But English in Philosophy makes the discerning philosopher chase a wild goose.

The above four passages represents different perspectives and different definitions. One's Subjective experiences cannot be reality to the other. How the hell can one than say it is for real.

What should be real should be clear, present and actual. I know it is difficult, but to find what is real within the above criteria's, tha perception should be subtracted to get the real answer. The Real, only shall than so be Revealed.
Amperage
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 02:29 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;122490 wrote:
What should be real should be clear, present and actual. I know it is difficult, but to find what is real within the above criteria's, tha perception should be subtracted to get the real answer. The Real, only shall than so be Revealed.
Why must what is real be clear? Think of Plato's allegory of the Cave. What was "actual" was not clear to those living in their false reality. This did not make what was actual any less real despite the fact they were not able to perceive it from their frame of reference. If anything exists objectively rather than subjectively then our perception of it can only be like that of viewing something through a dim mirror because we are subjective creatures.
0 Replies
 
paulhanke
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 03:23 pm
@Jackofalltrades phil,
Jackofalltrades;122490 wrote:
The reality is that English language and its words has serious limitations, and one being its inability to gather diffrenent nuances ...


... one of those nuances being that the act of perception is distinct from the content of perception is distinct from what the content of perception represents ... (and the same goes for reason) ... it seems to me that in order for me to count myself as real that the acts of perception and reason must count as real and the contents of perception and reason must count as real, as I am simply what I think and do (whether or not the contents of my perception and reason are accurate representations of anything beyond my own thoughts and actions is beside this particular point) ... so to make a blanket statement that Reality is what's left after you've removed all perception appears to deny me any place in Reality - that's all I'm getting at Smile ...
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/12/2024 at 12:05:33