Definition of Reality

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;128020 wrote:

Feelings, whatever you happen to feel, are a poor judge of truth. The point is that the "big questions" are largely too vague to admit of a sensible answer.

Yes, feelings can lead us to self-destructive beliefs. But "reason is the slave of passions." We have a passion to survive, you might say. This passion discourages utterly impractical beliefs.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128320 wrote:

Yes, feelings can lead us to self-destructive beliefs. But "reason is the slave of passions." We have a passion to survive, you might say. This passion discourages utterly impractical beliefs.

Not so as I notice. For example, utopianism, obamacare, communism, that we can get along with Islamic fascism, that terrorism is a criminal matter, and so on.

1 Reply

@pagan,

pagan;127578 wrote:

Thus a more rational or irrational view of the world must be adopted out of survival. Depending on the person and their circumstance.

A person could equate the rational with that which helps us survive. In this case, some "lies" could function as truths. For instance, the army with God on its side might fight better. The more religious tribe might have more internal cohesion, more confidence in battle. It might be easier to risk one's life if virgins are waiting in heaven, etc.

But then we also have a taste for heroes, that kind that die for truth, justice, love, etc.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;127783 wrote:

But isn't this why there needs to be some sense of the ultimate value? In the Buddhist view, the goal of the path is going beyond all suffering. It is a real goal with a real means. I think Christianity has lost sight of it to a great extent because there is no way of knowing whether the goal has been or is being achieved. You have to just believe. But the Buddhist attitude is that "The Dharma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence".

In other words, there needs to be something normative in all of this. Otherwise it is just aimless. Whether it is derived from Greek philosophy or some other source, there must be some way out of the maze. If 'reality' is just what everyone sees and knows, how is there any philosophy? Everyone is a philosopher and there is no difference between wisdom and folly.

I think the problem with needing something normative is that pragmatism is inevitably called upon to answer why we need there to be attainable ultimate value or truth... and that takes one back to square one does it not? You may have a reason for needing something normative, but that reason only answers the question of "why this something instead of that something" through using a pragmatic approach.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;128332 wrote:

Not so as I notice. For example, utopianism, obamacare, communism, that we can get along with Islamic fascism, that terrorism is a criminal matter, and so on.

I said discourages, not obliterates.

Man knows he is mortal, so this passion to survive is known, from time to time, to be a futile passion. Enter heroic folly.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 04:21 AM ----------

kennethamy;128020 wrote:

Feelings, whatever you happen to feel, are a poor judge of truth. The point is that the "big questions" are largely too vague to admit of a sensible answer.

A sensible answer meaning what?

The big questions aren't obviously practical. I'll grant you that. But the music of Mozart isn't obviously practical. Philosophy functions aesthetically, religiously, politically, scientifically, as literature, etc.

I also suggest that it does so simultaneously. Living humans, in my view, don't easily separate their epistemology from their religion or politics or self-esteem. I think boigraphies are popular because we like to see the complicated relationship of all these aspects of person's philosophy )or world-view, if you prefer.)

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128407 wrote:

I said discourages, not obliterates.

Man knows he is mortal, so this passion to survive is known, from time to time, to be a futile passion. Enter heroic folly.

---------- Post added 02-15-2010 at 04:21 AM ----------

A sensible answer meaning what?

The big questions aren't obviously practical. I'll grant you that. But the music of Mozart isn't obviously practical. Philosophy functions aesthetically, religiously, politically, scientifically, as literature, etc.

I also suggest that it does so simultaneously. Living humans, in my view, don't easily separate their epistemology from their religion or politics or self-esteem. I think boigraphies are popular because we like to see the complicated relationship of all these aspects of person's philosophy )or world-view, if you prefer.)

"Sensible" = "makes sense".

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

Quote:

jeeprs
But isn't this why there needs to be some sense of the ultimate value? In the Buddhist view, the goal of the path is going beyond all suffering. It is a real goal with a real means.

i don't mean to create any discord here but for me 'ultimate value' sounds like a grand narrative. Fair enough if that is what a person needs, but it is not necessarily the case. The polytheistic and multi narrative approach does not require an 'ultimate value'..... it is a search for values in an ever changing world.

With regards to going beyond all suffering as a real goal with a real means. I have to say this is where i became utterly against buddhism. I may be wrong. Maybe the impossible is possible, and certainly i learnt some amazing stuff from buddhism and i respect its general attitude of peace and tolerance and acceptance of impermanence. But the promise of the end of suffering (as it is bound to be generally conceived no matter how erudite and mystical an alternative explanation can be given) is for me a great big lie. I am sorry. But for example. You find out that a child has been found dead after years of terrible abuse. If a person doesn't get a personal sense of suffering (not to mention outrage) upon hearing such a thing especially if you knew the child, then you have not reached nirvana ..... you are brain and heart dead. To go beyond suffering in this sense is an appalling idea. Alternatively to go beyond physical pain? What a great promise! and really teach it to people? Well come on. Prove it. Share it. Make it available to everyone.......... Especially to the abused child at school.

I see no evidence of this reality promised by some buddhists. That really angers me. Incredible states of bliss and new awareness and utterly profound changes in relationship to reality yes. Great stuff. Beyond suffering? Nah. show me what such a person looks and sounds like. The ultimate value? I wouldn't even call it a value.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;128446 wrote:

"Sensible" = "makes sense".

1. Circular
2. See 1.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128614 wrote:

1. Circular
2. See 1.

I was only explaining what I meant. Not defining the term. You seemed to be in some doubt.

0 Replies

@housby,

To define "reality." Isn't that nice? For the truth I like to be the truth of us all.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;128900 wrote:

To define "reality." Isn't that nice? For the truth I like to be the truth of us all.

What is "the truth of us all?"
What's nice?
I've stayed away from this thread for a bit, hoping
someone could define reality and wrap it up in
a pretty box for me so I don't have to spend any
more time pondering it.
No such luck.
I was hoping for something less prosaic,
but I may still have to fall back on the second post
in this thread, lo so many pages ago . . .

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;129760 wrote:

I've stayed away from this thread for a bit, hoping
someone could define reality and wrap it up in
a pretty box for me so I don't have to spend any
more time pondering it.
No such luck.
. .

Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing it. Without the pretty box, reality is what is mind-independent. If you don't like this definition, maybe you should say why, and I might be able to convince you that it is correct.

3 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;129762 wrote:

Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing it. Without the pretty box, reality is what is mind-independent. If you don't like this definition, maybe you should say why, and I might be able to convince you that it is correct.

No, I've looked at reality from a number of different angles over the years, and I'm fine with this definition. Sometimes it's just entertaining though to go beyond the WYSIWYG realm of mind-independence and pretend there is more to it all.

However, I think it's important to bear in mind what Quine had to say on the matter:

Quote:

Not that soberly seeking to learn is all there should be; let there be fun and games as well. But let it also be clear where the boundaries are. A person might have a moderately amusing time playing with a ouija board, but if he drifts into the belief that it is a bona fide avenue to discovery then something has gone amiss.

2 Replies

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;129766 wrote:

No, I've looked at reality from a number of different angles over the years, and I'm fine with this definition. Sometimes it's just entertaining though to go beyond the WYSIWYG realm of mind-independence and pretend there is more to it all.

However, I think it's important to bear in mind what Quine had to say on the matter:

I don't understand what you think that passage from Quine says about the matter.

1 Reply

@TickTockMan,

TickTockMan;129766 wrote:

No, I've looked at reality from a number of different angles over the years, and I'm fine with this definition. Sometimes it's just entertaining though to go beyond the WYSIWYG realm of mind-independence and pretend there is more to it all.

However, I think it's important to bear in mind what Quine had to say on the matter:

From a practical standpoint, I can agree with you. But that quote itself is not mind-independent. I think it's dangerous to make "mind-independence" the business of serious men and consign the rest to play.

Mind-independent reality is a an extremely useful fiction. Humans had to use their minds to infer this beast in the first place. No doubt, it's been a brilliantly successful invention, but I hate to think of future-science or future-philosophy being limited by the successes of yesterday.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;129762 wrote:

Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing it. Without the pretty box, reality is what is mind-independent. If you don't like this definition, maybe you should say why, and I might be able to convince you that it is correct.

That's a conveniently idealistic quote. If the madman stops believing in ghosts do they magically stop appearing in front of him? If that same madman used your definition, then he has every merit to think ghosts exist.

If scientists stop believing Quantum Mechanics, does that mean the world stops operating on its principles?

We could get along just fine without knowledge of relativity or QM or even germ theory, but some beliefs are tied to exploration, so until we explore the unknown we should remain quiet about "what remains when you have stopped believing it"!

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129804 wrote:

Mind-independent reality is a an extremely useful fiction. Humans had to use their minds to infer this beast in the first place. No doubt, it's been a brilliantly successful invention, but I hate to think of future-science or future-philosophy being limited by the successes of yesterday.

How would it follow from the undoubted fact that minds had to be used to conceive of mind-independent reality, that there is no mind-independent reality? That is fallacious on the face of it. It is like saying that to talk about anything I have to use my mouth, so there is nothing I can talk about that is mouth-independent. Everything I talk about is dependent on my mouth to exist. You see that is fallacious, don't you?

0 Replies

@housby,

On Protagoras, to show how old this issue is.

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".[5] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."[7]

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;129861 wrote:

On Protagoras, to show how old this issue is.

His most famous saying is: "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".[5] Like many fragments of the Presocratics, this phrase has been passed down to us without any context, and its meaning is open to interpretation. Plato ascribes relativism to Protagoras and uses his predecessor's teachings as a foil for his own commitment to objective and transcendent realities and values. Plato also ascribes to Protagoras an early form of phenomenalism,[6] in which what is or appears for a single individual is true or real for that individual.
Protagoras was a proponent of agnosticism. In his lost work, On the Gods, he wrote: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."[7]

Protagoras was a relativist, but he was not a subjectivist. He thought that truth was relative, but never thought it depended on his mind.

You can see the distinction in terms of the the notion of the notions of being on the right hand, or being on the left hand. The chair is on my right or left relative to the direction I am facing. But whether the chair is on my right or on my left is not subjective. It is as objective as you like.

It is important to distinguish between relativism and subjectivism,

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;129776 wrote:

I don't understand what you think that passage from Quine says about the matter.

I think it has less to do with how we perceive reality, and more to do with how we react to, or interact with, the mind-independent reality that surrounds us. I think it has everything to do with how we approach the matter, in this case, of reality.

As I have noted before, I supplement my income to a certain degree with my surrealistic/abstract art. It behooves me, as an artist, to be able to temporarily relinquish my grip on reality as it is normally perceived and present an alternate version/vision of reality that can act as a vehicle to carry a message, feeling, or idea to whoever happens to be examining one of my pieces.

But, as Quine notes, I'm just having fun, and that's all well and good. However, I also know where my boundaries are, as far as actually interacting with reality, indeed, what I believe reality actually is.

This is why, I think, the passage I quoted from Quine is relative to the matter. That is, he is making the cautionary statement that while it is fine to play make-believe and enjoy little vacations into unreality, it is a mistake to act upon these flights of fancy as though they had anything to do with the reality in which the real business of living and being takes place.

This is what I think, regarding the passage from Quine. Not being terribly clever, I find much of Quine, Moore, and Russell to be tough going, though I am reasonably certain I am in agreement with them. If my interpretation of Quine in this instance strikes you as incorrect, I hope that you will take the time to explain to me why you feel I am in error.

1 Reply

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know