Definition of Reality

A being experiences reality through the stream of time. Reality is the illusion of existence that occurs as a result of experiencing time.

What is real is what is not imaginary (like a mirage): Or not fake, like an artificial diamond. .

A being experiences reality through the stream of time. Reality is the illusion of existence that occurs as a result of experiencing time.

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 ...

Moral Reality by itslef is an oxymoron.

Perception and reasoning is not reality.

Moral Reality by itslef is an oxymoron.

Perception and reasoning is not reality.

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 .

...."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

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"?

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.

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.

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.

If it is thinking outside of logic (and it possibly could be) ...

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.

Infinity isn't logical to the limitations of the human mind ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

The reality is that English language and its words has serious limitations, and one being its inability to gather diffrenent nuances ...