Definition of Reality

@housby,

The discussion itself is a reflection on this particular moment in history and culture. It is in some respects the most fundamental question in philosophy and science. Because of the time we live in, everything is up for grabs. I think this discussion is a symptom of that. A century ago - or maybe two, now - the retort would have been: 'Read the Classics!' Now there is a sense, a kind of uneasiness, that reality itself has been dissolved before our eyes, and the question becomes 'where do we start?' 'Give me a lever, and I shall move the world' said Archimedes. But we no longer have a fulcrum.

The question is invariably somehow caught up in reflexive paradox: what is the meaning of 'meaning'? How is reality 'real'?

I say this because in many other times and circumstances, this question would not even present itself. But the project of modernity has been so thorough in its uprooting of tradition and the questioning of assumptions that we are questioning the nature of reality itself. This might be good and useful, but it doesn't have to be. I think nihilism is always a real choice under the circumstances. Neitszche saw this coming. One might think that nihilism is abstract or remote; I think it is ubiquitous. Emotionally, it manifests as 'nothing means anything'; philosophically, as 'all viewpoints are equal'. There is plenty of it about. In some respects it is close to the default position for the secular outlook.

The scientific philosophers are blithely unaware of any of this, mainly because of their determined lack of self-awareness. So there are a very large number of metaphysical basics which they have put in their basket called 'we will figure this out one day'. They have failed to notice that most of the weapons in their armory have been given to them as-is: principally, mathematics, which they now presume is merely the fruit of adaptive necessity. The intellect itself, long understood as the 'fingerprint of the divine in the human soul', is now just another system to be analysed, mapped and explained. As a result, they have lost sight of the vital distinction between that which is to be explained, and he or she who is to explain it. The subject has become just another object. Very few appreciate the immense difference between the questions of 'what is number' and 'how is mathematics applied'?

So asking 'what is reality' in the context of this current time is actually, in my view, knowingly or not, something of a cry of anguish.

Apologies if I sound portentous. This is where my reading is taking me.

References:
The Wreck of Western Culture; John Carroll
The Theological Origins of Modernity; Michael Allen Gillespie

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122518 wrote:

So asking 'what is reality' in the context of this current time is actually, in my view, knowingly or not, something of a cry of anguish.

"What is reality" is one of those questions J.L. Austin called, "asking about nothing in particular". No wonder it is what the French call a "cri de coeur" (a cry from the heart).

2 Replies

@Owen phil,

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.

This is a perfect example of what I mean. We can have all the proofs we want but, as you rightly say, proof without mind is simply belief.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122548 wrote:

"What is reality" is one of those questions J.L. Austin called, "asking about nothing in particular". No wonder it is what the French call a "cri de coeur" (a cry from the heart).

Spot on. That is what I make of it also.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122518 wrote:

So asking 'what is reality' in the context of this current time is actually, in my view, knowingly or not, something of a cry of anguish.

When I read this I was somewhat moved by it because my interest in this whole topic came about several years ago (longer than I care to remember) when I got stuck in thought about death and it's inevitability. This lead to a serious questioning of belief and a search for something more. I was 21 at the time and had never really given any serious thought to religion or philosophy. I always viewed that time as the turning point in my whole way of thinking, and I have been searchng ever since. The reason it struck me was because I described that time in my life a few years later as a cry for help. The one thing I learned from all that was that it is alright to question but we must be careful not to get carried away. I dived in too deeply and too quick and suffered through lack of understanding. Now I still ask questions but I have learned to "just get on with it" also.
I may have had my doubts about reality but I also know that whatever reality is there is one thing I know (I think) and that is we are stuck with it, we can't think ourselves out of existence.
Sorry about the digression there but I had to comment on the quote.

1 Reply

@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 know I am going to die some day, but I don't want to die laughing..You can not produce a single slice of Love, nor can you define any of the other infinites you have mentioned..In fact, all of those infinites like Love are meanings without being...In no sense do they quality as real...They have no more reality than the meaning we give to them...

1 Reply

@housby,

housby;122591 wrote:

When I read this I was somewhat moved by it because my interest in this whole topic came about several years ago (longer than I care to remember) when I got stuck in thought about death and it's inevitability. This lead to a serious questioning of belief and a search for something more. I was 21 at the time and had never really given any serious thought to religion or philosophy. I always viewed that time as the turning point in my whole way of thinking, and I have been searchng ever since. The reason it struck me was because I described that time in my life a few years later as a cry for help. The one thing I learned from all that was that it is alright to question but we must be careful not to get carried away. I dived in too deeply and too quick and suffered through lack of understanding. Now I still ask questions but I have learned to "just get on with it" also.
I may have had my doubts about reality but I also know that whatever reality is there is one thing I know (I think) and that is we are stuck with it, we can't think ourselves out of existence.
Sorry about the digression there but I had to comment on the quote.

I don't think it is a digression, and yours is a very balanced attitude - basic sanity asserts itself. But too far one way, one just accepts the 'consensus reality', too far the other, and as you say, you can be carried away. But this fundamental questioning is a really important attribute in my view. I think the real philosophers, or searchers after truth, have always done that, and it is a hard thing to do - the razor's edge, as one book described it. Stay with it and keep asking, I say.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122602 wrote:

I don't think it is a digression, and yours is a very balanced attitude - basic sanity asserts itself. But too far one way, one just accepts the 'consensus reality', too far the other, and as you say, you can be carried away. But this fundamental questioning is a really important attribute in my view. I think the real philosophers, or searchers after truth, have always done that, and it is a hard thing to do - the razor's edge, as one book described it. Stay with it and keep asking, I say.

I thought that reality is what remains when we have stopped believing in it. So that even if we do not believe it exists, it exists anyway. For example, if the Moon existed before there were people, as we have all sort of evidence that it did, then, since no one believed it existed, but the Moon existed anyway, the Moon is real. Is that wrong? If so, what is supposed to be wrong with it?

1 Reply

@housby,

You are quite correct in saying that, but your interest in the question is somewhat different. You are interested in the technical and academic side of the discipline, and are good at it. I think the question that the OP is asking arises from a different type of motivation, as you correctly noted in your previous post.

On a personal note, when I did my degree 30-odd years ago, my subjects were Philosophy, Comparitive Religion, Psychology, Anthropology and History. What I was looking for was not on the curriculum in philosophy, nor any of the other subects, but philosophy did touch on it. I might have mentioned before, I studied under David Stove. He was a rather crusty and extremely sharp critical thinker. But I was always asking these rather naff questions about 'enlightenment' which is what I was really interested in. Looking back on it, they (he and Paul Crittenden) were very indulgent with me. I didn't do very well in the 'technical' aspects of the subjects, but they quietly encouraged me in what was really a personal search for truth. I ended up doing an Honours Degree on Emerson, R.M. Bucke, and aspects of American transcendentalism, in the Religious Studies department. I don't think my supervisor actually even read the whole thesis (nobody ever did, except a guy on the train.) But they passed it anyway.

So that is a bit about my background. I acknowledge that a lot of what interests me is not actually within the confines of modern philosophy, as anyone here will realise. That is why my handle is 'neo-theosophist'. I am a lot nearer, intellectually, to the theosophical society (of which I hasten to add I am not a member) than to anything in philosophy. Theosophy asks a lot of questions that Western philosophy won't touch with a barge pole. I don't study Blavatsky or any of the 19th century books from the TS but I think that is the general milieu in which I operate.

Anyway - enough about me. But this is why I responded to the OP in the way I did, and my general attitude to these things. I sense a similar orientation in the OP. Of course it might pan out entirely differently for the person who wrote it - he might end up with a completely different answer to what I did, but I think he is asking a similar question.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122633 wrote:

You are quite correct in saying that, but your interest in the question is somewhat different. You are interested in the technical and academic side of the discipline, and are good at it. I think the question that the OP is asking arises from a different type of motivation, as you correctly noted in your previous post.

On a personal note, when I did my degree 30-odd years ago, my subjects were Philosophy, Comparitive Religion, Psychology, Anthropology and History. What I was looking for was not on the curriculum in philosophy, nor any of the other subects, but philosophy did touch on it. I might have mentioned before, I studied under David Stove. He was a rather crusty and extremely sharp critical thinker. But I was always asking these rather naff questions about 'enlightenment' which is what I was really interested in. Looking back on it, they (he and Paul Crittenden) were very indulgent with me. I didn't do very well in the 'technical' aspects of the subjects, but they quietly encouraged me in what was really a personal search for truth. I ended up doing an Honours Degree on Emerson, R.M. Bucke, and aspects of American transcendentalism, in the Religious Studies department. I don't think my supervisor actually even read the whole thesis (nobody ever did, except a guy on the train.) But they passed it anyway.

So that is a bit about my background. I acknowledge that a lot of what interests me is not actually within the confines of modern philosophy, as anyone here will realise. That is why my handle is 'neo-theosophist'. I am a lot nearer, intellectually, to the theosophical society (of which I hasten to add I am not a member) than to anything in philosophy. Theosophy asks a lot of questions that Western philosophy won't touch with a barge pole. I don't study Blavatsky or any of the 19th century books from the TS but I think that is the general milieu in which I operate.

Anyway - enough about me. But this is why I responded to the OP in the way I did, and my general attitude to these things. I sense a similar orientation in the OP. Of course it might pan out entirely differently for the person who wrote it - he might end up with a completely different answer to what I did, but I think he is asking a similar question.

But the question is, what is reality? How would the motivation of the question make any difference to the answer to the question? I can ask a question from different motivations, but the question remains the same question, and the answer (if there is one) is the same, too. Isn't reality what exists whether or not anyone believe it exists? If not, then why not? It does not seem to me that a different motivation matters to the answer you would give. For instance, when I say that the oasis is real, am I not saying that the oasis would exist even if everyone thought it was not an oasis, but a mirage?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Fido;122595 wrote:

I know I am going to die some day, but I don't want to die laughing..You can not produce a single slice of Love, nor can you define any of the other infinites you have mentioned..In fact, all of those infinites like Love are meanings without being...In no sense do they quality as real...They have no more reality than the meaning we give to them...

Are you suggesting that reality is only that which is tangible? Are thoughts/ideas real? If you believe in the afterlife the question becomes which is reality, this life or the next? Two ways you could think about this is the allegory of the cave where this life might be seen one of the people in the cave and the afterlife may be like the guy who was set free. Or I guess you could think of like moving from Houston to New York, both are equally real but completely different. Now are there any common threads between this life and the next? The bible suggest that there are things we can do in the here and now to "store up treasures" in the afterlife. Perhaps this is where virtues come into play. Clearly nothing tangible will be brought with us

1 Reply

@housby,

kennethamy;122637 wrote:

But the question is, what is reality? How would the motivation of the question make any difference to the answer to the question?

I don't accept the idea of a 'reality in itself independent of observers'. I believe that is a belief. Of course we have been going through this debate on various threads for months now, so I don't know what I can say that is new. But as it is a public holiday, I might have another go.

Sure the oasis is real, and there are also mirage oases. It is important to know the difference. There is reality, as opposed to illusion. That is a common sense view and quite correct as far as it goes. It might be life and death, if you're on a camel.

If you take the proverbial 'table' as an object of consciousness, of course it is real; if you run into it or put your coffee on it, you will find it is not a holographic projection or figment of your imagination. In fact for any of the proverbial 'objects of perception' this much is obvious.

But on another level of analysis, what is the table really? Well it is a combination of smaller pieces - legs, top, varnish, and so on. But each of those elements can be further analyzed into its constituents. When it is completely disassembled, it is no longer a table, but the same constituents continue to exist. Or maybe you could burn it, and hardly anything will remain. So at what point does it cease being 'really' a table? You could actually suggest that it is really only a table, insofar as it is designated as a table, and used as a table. There is no 'real' or 'essential' table, independent of this designation and usage. (This is a Buddhist analysis.)

It also exists as a table, because you and I use it like that. On some other planet, things might be arranged, for arguments sake, so that everything falls upwards. I imagine whatever serves a similar purpose in that environment would not be recognisable to us as 'table' and visca versa.

None of this is of much consequence, as far as the lounge-room furniture is concerned. But let's zoom out a bit and consider the real objects of perception. They always appear in a context - a figure on a background. What is the background? A hard question to ask, because as soon as you do, you're making a figure of the background. Nevertheless a great deal about the object in your perception is only inferred because of the relationship of the figure to the background. In a very real sense, no figure exists without a background - it couldn't, because then there would be no figure. So the background is as much a part of the perception of the object as is the figure. So in this respect 'the object of perception' is already an abstraction. (This is part of the phenomenological analysis.)

There is a whole other layer of explanation - your previous knowledge of the object and your relationship to it. Objects are, as Brentano said, 'intentional'. Two people will look at the same thing and see something completely different. When it comes to a simple piece of furniture, the difference might be trivial. When it comes to a situation calling for judgement, the differences may be very consequential indeed.

This brings to mind the whole question of judgement, of sensibility. Two people will gaze out into the starry skies on a moonlit night. One sees the handiwork of God, the other the outcome of chance and necessity.

How can you say they live in the same world?

The belief in the world 'out there' which is gradually being disclosed and manipulated by science is the religion of the secular age. It is what most sensible people believe in. There is nothing the matter with believing that, but this is what is being called into question. I don't think analytical philosophy will do that.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

Amperage;122505 wrote:

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.

Good example. Though, I am not very well versed with Plato (or any Philosophers for that matter) so i am not clear about what his intent or object of his cave allegory. I did read about it in Durants version and wikipedia. Plato's subjective reality of the caveman appears to be Real. It is not Reality.

Now one can keep on arguing that it does not matter how the outside world thinks about it, the one experiencing the shadows is all that matters. Individually it may be 'true' to the experiencer. But logic says what is true to someone should also be true to all others.

Plato's caveman allegory is just an allegory to exemplify the concept of perceptions in the form of an hypothetical analogy. The example does not take place in 'REAL Life'......... Is it so difficult to understand.

This leads me to a question on Why do people take examples or parables or stories with total faith in a Philosophers storyline. Why can't the notions of reality be tested in real terms instead of intellectually trying to understand the concept of reality. It is beyond me.

But let me try and simplify, by another example which will hopefully be more meaningful and simple to understand in modern terms......

Suppose a cave woman gives birth to a child. We take the child after birth to a house in which no one is allowed, not even the parents but some toys and things are kept for recreation along with a TV. The child is sustained someway or the other, but the TV comes on and off once a while. The images relayed to the child is of his parents who are right handed. All the activities are relayed off and on to the child, but with a slight anamoly. All the fixed cameras are focussed on a mirror placed on strategic locations in the parents room or cave. This is not conveyed to the child neither it is obvious.

Now what will happen. For the entire period of his childhood, he is seeing that his parents are left handed. Now you have to tell me what is reality in this case.

One will argue, from the child's perspective and state: 'From the Child's perpective 'Reality is that the parents are left handed'. Perception is Reality."

The others, like me, will argue: 'That the perception that the child was given to understand, and what was seen by him deceived him of the Real picture.

For the world outside, the Reality that his parents are right handed is the Real Reality. For those who argues that for the child Reality is something else is only true to the extent, limits and boundaries of the perceptive mind of the child. If this distinction is not clear, we will go into infinite regress, and infinite arguments and counter arguments.

Reality is what 'is'. Not what appears to be.

For the sake of humility i should add, suffix or prefix the above by saying that it is according to my limited knowledge or perspective.

paulhanke;122516 wrote:

... 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 ...

I get your point....... but please also read the Cave man's child and the TV analogy. It all depends on from which side you want to argue.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122622 wrote:

I thought that reality is what remains when we have stopped believing in it. So that even if we do not believe it exists, it exists anyway. For example, if the Moon existed before there were people, as we have all sort of evidence that it did, then, since no one believed it existed, but the Moon existed anyway, the Moon is real. Is that wrong? If so, what is supposed to be wrong with it?

Absolutely nothing wrong at all Kenneth. As I said, all we have is what we get. We can only deal with the information as it is given to us. If someone hits me over the head it will hurt and I will get a headache. There is nothing I can do about that. The fact that I question existence doesn't mean that nothing is real, it just means I ask questions and raise doubts, I can't stop the world being what it is (and neither would I want to - it would be an awful lonely place if it was all "a dream") all I do is ask the awkward questions and if no-one can convince me that is possibly my fault (but it may not be).

1 Reply

@housby,

Yeah Housby said it a lot more elegantly than I but I think that is what I was getting at also.

0 Replies

@housby,

housby;122674 wrote:

Absolutely nothing wrong at all Kenneth. As I said, all we have is what we get. We can only deal with the information as it is given to us. If someone hits me over the head it will hurt and I will get a headache. There is nothing I can do about that. The fact that I question existence doesn't mean that nothing is real, it just means I ask questions and raise doubts, I can't stop the world being what it is (and neither would I want to - it would be an awful lonely place if it was all "a dream") all I do is ask the awkward questions and if no-one can convince me that is possibly my fault (but it may not be).

But, what are you raising doubts about? What is it to "question existence"? To tell you the truth, I don't find your questions awkward: what I find is that you raise what that American philosopher, Charles Pierce called, "paper doubts", and "fake doubts". "Some people" Pierce wrote, "apparently think that doubting is as easy as lying". The question is whether your doubts are real doubts, or just made-up. As Peirce also wrote, "We should not doubt in philosophy what we do not also doubt in our hearts". To doubt, Pierce tells us, we need a positive reason for doubting.* We cannot doubt simply by uttering the words, "I doubt". It does not work that way. (Perhaps I am raising awkward questions about your questions. Is that all right? That is what Peirce did. And so have others).

*For instance, have you any positive reason for thinking that "the world is just a dream"?

1 Reply

@housby,

housby;122578 wrote:

This is a perfect example of what I mean. We can have all the proofs we want but, as you rightly say, proof without mind is simply belief.

All of: truth, proof, belief, knowledge, etc. do not exist without mind.
How can someone believe something if there is no someone?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122698 wrote:

But, what are you raising doubts about? What is it to "question existence"? To tell you the truth, I don't find your questions awkward: what I find is that you raise what that American philosopher, Charles Pierce called, "paper doubts", and "fake doubts". "Some people" Pierce wrote, "apparently think that doubting is as easy as lying". The question is whether your doubts are real doubts, or just made-up. As Peirce also wrote, "We should not doubt in philosophy what we do not also doubt in our hearts". To doubt, Pierce tells us, we need a positive reason for doubting.* We cannot doubt simply by uttering the words, "I doubt". It does not work that way. (Perhaps I am raising awkward questions about your questions. Is that all right? That is what Peirce did. And so have others).

*For instance, have you any positive reason for thinking that "the world is just a dream"?

Trust me, Kenneth, if you had lived in my head (maybe that's all we all do?) for the last 35 years or more you would understand that:
A: my doubts are genuine regardless of what Pierce or anyone else has said. And what exactly do you mean by "made up doubts"? Of course they are made up, but not in the way a fairytale is madeup. A genuine doubt has no proof, it is an idea and ideas are always made up until there appears any proof. At one point people doubted that the earth was flat and were ridiculed but, in as much as we "prove" anything they were right.
B: As in my last post (if you have read it) and as I have stated openly numerous times before, I "believe" the world and everything in it is real because we can only deal with what is put in front of us and, short of death, we can't escape it.
This may make me sound somewhat contrary as they do seem to be opposing views but I think this is what is commonly termed "keeping an open mind". I am not and never would ask such questions just to be annoying or contraversial. My wife, who is a card carrying member of the atheist club, has often criticised me for fence sitting on the issue of God simply because I accept the "possibility" of a devine existence even though I am not a "believer". We can't "believe" 2 opposing things but we can question that which we do believe. Isn't that why we all subscribe to this site???
Incidentally if we had a positive reason for doubting would that not make it more than just a doubt? A positive reason is surely some kind of evidence, is it not? "The world is just a dream" is not my idea, it is the idea of countless philosophers and religious beliefs (mmmm?) for many years. It is an awkward question for most people because if it wasn't it wouldn't have been debated for centuries by men (and women) of great intelligence without any concrete answer (other than the "it is because it is" kind of answer).
Doubt my arguments and their validity if you wish, Kenneth, that is your right to do so, but please do not doubt my sincerity on this matter as it has caused me concern (for want of a better term) for many years.

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;122640 wrote:

Are you suggesting that reality is only that which is tangible? Are thoughts/ideas real? If you believe in the afterlife the question becomes which is reality, this life or the next? Two ways you could think about this is the allegory of the cave where this life might be seen one of the people in the cave and the afterlife may be like the guy who was set free. Or I guess you could think of like moving from Houston to New York, both are equally real but completely different. Now are there any common threads between this life and the next? The bible suggest that there are things we can do in the here and now to "store up treasures" in the afterlife. Perhaps this is where virtues come into play. Clearly nothing tangible will be brought with us

Oddly enough; I am suggesting only a tangible reality...Res from which we get re(s)ality means thing...It is the stuff of physics... Even our lives which are spiritually conceived rest upon a bedrock of physical needs... We have all spiritual values, (meanings) as a result of our needs to make real our individual realities by securing our physical needs...All forms and ideas are spiritually conceived, even when these point to a physical reality, like water, or nutrition, or air...Try to remember that it is not the form, or the idea, or the abstraction of any kind that is real, but the reality conceived that is real, if it is physically real...All the rest are simply meanings without being...They are no more real than we, or the spiritual conceptions we have with life, and they will die with us...

As far as the Bible says: spare me...I have read it, and studied it, and have several copies, even in the Greek...Theology is not philosophy...Believe as you wish, but in the consideration of infintes, like God, there is no firm ground, and no useful knowledge...Religion has no practical value...

0 Replies

@Jackofalltrades phil,

Jackofalltrades;122660 wrote:

It all depends on from which side you want to argue.

... I think I'm missing your point ... to put a child in a house with a TV that shows reflected images of his parents seems to be simply a high-tech version of Plato's allegory ... you state that what is real is that the child's parents are right handed - to that I would simply add:

- the child's act of perceiving is real (i.e., a real act)
- the child's perception of his parents is real (i.e., a real perception)

Neither of these is in conflict with the child's parents being right handed (i.e., a real property of the parents) ... it is simply that the child's perception, being mediated by the TV and the elaborate camera setup, is indirect and distorted - even more so than the normal indirection and distortion due to the mediation of the senses (which is what Plato's allegory appears to me to be about).

(Pardon me if I've misunderstood your last statement and am just beating a dead horse! Smile

)

0 Replies

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know