Definition of Reality

I agree. You like Blake? Good stuff. There does seem to be a time lag.

Check out this passage from Kojeve:

In the course of history, man speaks of the real and reveals it by the meaning of his discourses. Therefore the concrete real is a real revealed by discourse. Consequently, when he says that Nature is only an abstraction and that only Spirit is real and concrete, he is saying nothing paradoxical. He is simply saying that the concrete real is the totality of the real from which nothing has been taken away by abstraction, and that this totality, as it exists really, implies that something which we call history. To describe the concrete real, therefore, is to describe its historical becoming too. Now this becoming is precisely what Hegel calls dialectic or movement. To say that the concrete real is spirit, then, is to assert that it has a dialectical character, and to say that it is a real revealed by discourse, or Spirit.

It is very easy to get lost in a hall of mirrors once you reach this point. It requires great caution combined with the ability to think very imaginatively about what everyone usually just takes for granted. There are precedents in philosophy but not in 20th Century philosophy, which is mainly 'philosophizing inside the Matrix'. That is why I always quote the ancient Greeks and Hindu and Buddhist sages. They all have a vantage point. They are willing to consider that conventional existence might be illusory in many respects. But it is a very disorienting thing to consider.

...
... so then I take it that for you if every human were to suddenly pass away leaving no-one to perceive, that there would be no reality? ... and that reality today is at once both that the earth is flat (because some people believe it to be so) and the earth is round (because other people believe it to be so)? ... and that when my cousin died the reality was at once both that he died of cancer (because the doctor believed it to be so) and that he died from being poisoned by the doctor (because his wife believed it to be so)? ...

Yes, there can be no one absolute reality because reality is based on perception. If there is no absolute perception then there is no absolute reality. If there were no humans then reality could still exist, however, only if there is something around to perceive it.

The question we are really asking is what is being, not necessarily reality.

What are the qualifications of being? What does it mean to be?

Would it make sense to suppose that all money is counterfeit, even genuine money? Isn't counterfeit money exactly not genuine money? But what if even genuine money is counterfeit money? Then, what is counterfeit money? It cannot be not genuine money, for there is no genuine money. The supposition of The Matrix is just like the supposition that all money, even genuine money is counterfeit money. How could that be? As Wittgenstein once wrote, do not saw off the branch you are sitting on.

Would it make sense to suppose that all money is counterfeit, even genuine money? Isn't counterfeit money exactly not genuine money? But what if even genuine money is counterfeit money? Then, what is counterfeit money? It cannot be not genuine money, for there is no genuine money. The supposition of The Matrix is just like the supposition that all money, even genuine money is counterfeit money. How could that be? As Wittgenstein once wrote, do not saw off the branch you are sitting on.

I would say that is a beautiful description of how I view reality. However, as we have already discussed, most people are not in the position to even begin to understand what any of that means.

Their side of the argument maintains that nothing is real unless it can be proven by modern science. This perspective is founded on the axiom that science is always right. As we've seen throughout history, as with Newtonian physics, science is not always right. Although it may seem right within individual contexts of time.

This perspective of reality is coming out of a very irrational view of the world created by dualism. Attempting to separate the exterior world and inner consciousness is what has led us to feel the need to have these arguments. All that resulted from that perspective is the paradox concerning empiricism and idealism, with both sides claiming superiority over the other.

The split would never have needed to occur if science hadn't fallen under the impression that things were immutable in a fixed space and time. The very basis of Locke's entire philosophy rested upon the persistence of things, but as Einstein postulated, even time and space are relative. Therefore, we can base our philosophy on the irrational axiom that things are absolute.

Once you go back to the beginning of the dilemma and throw out the mind/body dichotomy the paradox basically solves itself. The problem is after 200 years of understanding human persons one way, the change cannot happen over night.

William Blake is a very interesting character. I'm sure you would agree that it is no coincidence that many of the most influential philosophers have also been amazing poets. It stands testament to the importance of language to the human mind/psyche/soul.

The split would never have needed to occur if science hadn't fallen under the impression that things were immutable in a fixed space and time.

I would say that is a beautiful description of how I view reality. However, as we have already discussed, most people are not in the position to even begin to understand what any of that means.

Their side of the argument maintains that nothing is real unless it can be proven by modern science. This perspective is founded on the axiom that science is always right. As we've seen throughout history, as with Newtonian physics, science is not always right. Although it may seem right within individual contexts of time.

This perspective of reality is coming out of a very irrational view of the world created by dualism. Attempting to separate the exterior world and inner consciousness is what has led us to feel the need to have these arguments. All that resulted from that perspective is the paradox concerning empiricism and idealism, with both sides claiming superiority over the other.

The split would never have needed to occur if science hadn't fallen under the impression that things were immutable in a fixed space and time. The very basis of Locke's entire philosophy rested upon the persistence of things, but as Einstein postulated, even time and space are relative. Therefore, we can base our philosophy on the irrational axiom that things are absolute.

Once you go back to the beginning of the dilemma and throw out the mind/body dichotomy the paradox basically solves itself. The problem is after 200 years of understanding human persons one way, the change cannot happen over night.

William Blake is a very interesting character. I'm sure you would agree that it is no coincidence that many of the most influential philosophers have also been amazing poets. It stands testament to the importance of language to the human mind/psyche/soul.

Yes, there can be no one absolute reality because reality is based on perception. I?

You don't mean reality is based on perception. What you mean must be that our beliefs about reality are based on perception. We have to distinguish between reality, and what we believe about reality. Otherwise, we may think there is no reality at all.

Agree, but maybe the term Reality induces naive thinking, thus Being is more adequate...

Yes, there can be no one absolute reality because reality is based on perception.

The question we are really asking is what is being, not necessarily reality.

What are the qualifications of being? What does it mean to be?

... but then, what is perception based on? ...



... could it possibly be that the answer to the question "What does it mean to be?" is simply "To be real." ... because it seems to me that on the lower rungs of the ladder of being, there is little difference between being and reality ... for example, to be a rock is to be real without any of the complications (e.g., perception, illusion, etc.) that come with living being ...

I think you just mean that rocks and human beings are different. And they are. Being real does not seem to have much to do with it.

... the point of the difference being that if you want to understand what reality is, I think you're going to get a better start from studying rock being than human being, because rock being is unfettered with all the bells and whistles of staying alive ...

Oh. And what do you think that studying a rock will tell you about reality that studying human beings won't?

... perhaps that reality contains multiple grades of being, as opposed to possibly mis-attributing elements of human being to all being ...

What leads you to think so? (Whatever that means).