Definition of Reality

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130449 wrote:

I completely agree. Reality as experience. Some of this experience is the distinctions we make on words like "reality."

And it follows that dreams are reality. And so are hallucinations. Right.

0 Replies

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;130197 wrote:

There is a false dichotomy between "objective" and "subjective." An experience consists of an "object" that is experienced and a "subject" that is doing the experiencing. All experience is both "subjective" and "objective" in that it involves an interaction between a subject and an object. When a scientist "reads a thermometer," she's the subject and the visual phenomenon she experiences is the object. She then "makes an interpretation" of the visual phenomena, where again, she is the "subject" and the "interpretation," which is a mental phenomenon, is the "object." So-called "objective reality" is the consensus among "subjects" as to the interpretation of the "objects" they are experiencing.

I also agree with this. But I would qualify the word "false" applied to this dichotomy. The "trueness" of the dichotomy would seem to lie in its usefulness for certain purposes. The "falseness" of the dichotomy is, in my opinion, the seeing that both subject and object are constructs, abstractions. The "subject" is as much an "object" as the "object" is.Wittgenstein talks of the self as the limit of the world, and of the similarity between solipsism and naive realism. Hegel concerns himself with the dialectic twixt subject and object, eventually unifying subject and substance.

---------- Post added 02-20-2010 at 10:33 PM ----------

longknowledge;130197 wrote:

It's not clear to me what you're trying to say here. :confused:

:flowers:

By "sensual" I was referring to sensation. "Seeing is believing." For practical reasons, we tend to regard sensations as more objective than thoughts. I would say that objectivity and consensus are interdependent. What we can look at together is often that which is considered "real." Private experience is suspect. The court demands or at least pretends to demand hard evidence. This obsession with hard evidence doesn't prevent the so-called subjective factor from making itself felt.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130453 wrote:

I also agree with this. But I would qualify the word "false" applied to this dichotomy. The "trueness" of the dichotomy would seem to lie in its usefulness for certain purposes. The "falseness" of the dichotomy is, in my opinion, the seeing that both subject and object are constructs, abstractions. The "subject" is as much an "object" as the "object" is.Wittgenstein talks of the self as the limit of the world, and of the similarity between solipsism and naive realism. Hegel concerns himself with the dialectic twixt subject and object, eventually unifying subject and substance.

So, how come that there was a world before you were born, and there will be a world after you are dead, if there is no dichotomy between you and the rest of the world?

0 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130453 wrote:

. I would say that objectivity and consensus are interdependent.

Perhaps I should instead say that objectivity is dependent upon consensus. It occurred to me that consensus is also often based on seemingly shared "subjective" experience.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130441 wrote:

But you know very well what I mean by "truck" One of those largish vehicles you see when you are driving on the road. There is no puzzle about what I mean by "truck". And a toy truck is not one of those. So, stop pretending you do not know what I mean. And, a toy truck is not one of those vehicles, as you know. Why pretend you are puzzled when you are not? And, toy trucks, although not real trucks are not imaginary, so they are real. Isn't that how we talk? A toy truck is not a real truck, but a toy truck is certainly real. Who would deny that?

That motto by Ortega must be ironic.

I didn't pretend to know what you meant by "truck." If your meaning of the word "truck" is "one of those largish vehicles you see when you are driving on the road," then, ironically, a "toy truck" should not be called a "truck." Also, ironically, by your definition a bus could be called a "truck." [By the way, is a "truck" that carries toys a "real truck" or a "toy truck"?]

What I am puzzled about is what you mean by "real," which is the topic of this thread. When you use the terms "real truck" as opposed to "toy truck," and then "real truck" as opposed to "imaginary truck," and then "real dream," etc., it appears as if you are using different meanings of the word "real."

Also, when I asked the question "Where does reality remain when you cease believing in it?" it was really a rhetorical question. The answer is, believe it or not, in "My Life," in your life, in the life of each person. There are as many realities as there are persons. So you and Ortega are in agreement again.

Viva Ortega! :flowers:
_____________________________________

"A definition, if it is truthful, is ironic; it implicates tacit reservations and when it is not interpreted thusly, produces unfortunate results." Ortega y Gasset

0 Replies

@housby,

This ties in to Wittgenstein's meaning-as-use. As I have mentioned before, we use the words "real" and "reality" in a host of different ways.

"The reality of the situation was so and so."
"Get real!"
"You know me -- I'm keepin' it real."
"Really?"
"I really don't know."
"That's not a reality for me."
"Reality is for those who lack imagination."
"The real thing."
"Now that's real rock-n-roll."
"She's a real woman."
"Reality is objective. The rest is fairy tales and feelings."
"Reality is dialectical."
"God isn't real."
"Reality is god."
"What is reality?"

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130478 wrote:

This ties in to Wittgenstein's meaning-as-use. As I have mentioned before, we use the words "real" and "reality" in a host of different ways.

"The reality of the situation was so and so."
"Get real!"
"You know me -- I'm keepin' it real."
"Really?"
"I really don't know."
"That's not a reality for me."
"Reality is for those who lack imagination."
"The real thing."
"Now that's real rock-n-roll."
"She's a real woman."
"Reality is objective. The rest is fairy tales and feelings."
"Reality is dialectical."
"God isn't real."
"Reality is god."
"What is reality?"

That there are different contexts in which we use the term, "real" in no way shows that the term is used in a different way in each of those contexts. It might be used in the same way in many different contexts. Whether it is has to be examined, and cannot be known a priori. Faulty argument, I am afraid.

0 Replies

@housby,

Is it just a seductive prejudice that "reality" is singular? A singular-reality is useful indeed. Our survival may depend on it. But philosophy is not just the browning of toast.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130529 wrote:

Is it just a seductive prejudice that "reality" is singular? A singular-reality is useful indeed. Our survival may depend on it. But philosophy is not just the browning of toast.

"Reality" is singular, but, "realities" is plural. What is your point?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130574 wrote:

"Reality" is singular, but, "realities" is plural. What is your point?

Well, maybe if you'd listen to him you'd realize philosophy isn't the preparation of toast.

2 Replies

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130529 wrote:

Is it just a seductive prejudice that "reality" is singular? A singular-reality is useful indeed. Our survival may depend on it. But philosophy is not just the browning of toast.

Reality is plural. The life of each person is a reality. This is why a concensus is necessary.

For how many people is "global warming" a reality? That is, how many people are experiencing "global warming" as a reality in their lives. This is the problem in convincing people it is "real."

Reportedly, there is a concensus among most scientists that global warming is "really" taking place and that it is mainly "really" caused by human activity. According to these scientists, if we don't reduce our output of CO2, we will be "toast."

But, there appears to be real doubts among some scientists as to whether global warming is caused by human activity, or even whether it is taking place.

Who to believe? The long period of cold weather we have been experiencing here in Upstate New York in January and February of this year are not very convincing in my reality. I wonder what the residents of Washington, DC,:confused: think about it?

:flowers:

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130577 wrote:

Well, maybe if you'd listen to him you'd realize philosophy isn't the preparation of toast.

Philosophy isn't the BJ-girl of natural science. Or not in my eyes.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 04:27 AM ----------

longknowledge;130579 wrote:

Reality is plural. The life of each person is a reality.

Exactly. Experience is reality. For various reasons we divide this experience between subjective and objective and so on. But the reality-as-singular notion, however useful, can also be limiting.

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130618 wrote:

Philosophy isn't the BJ-girl of natural science. Or not in my eyes.

If it was I'd be kicking butt and taking names, and then getting my butt kicked by people who understand it better... but I don't have to think about that now do I!

Quote:

Exactly. Experience is reality. For various reasons we divide this experience between subjective and objective and so on. But the reality-as-singular notion, however useful, can also be limiting.

Experience = one's personal view of reality (this is for Kenneth)

2 Replies

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;130630 wrote:

Experience = one's personal view of reality (this is for Kenneth)

I agree. Except you say personal view which stresses the objective. For me the objective and subjective are differentiated culturally. For instance, in a society of believers the tribal God is an objective reality. (Though they wouldn't use the term.) In a different society, like ours, Gods and religion are considered subjective experience.
I should also make it clear that singular reality is important and useful to me personally, and I don't deny its value. I just object to the self-abnegation of those who deny that e

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;130635 wrote:

I agree. Except you say personal view which stresses the objective. For me the objective and subjective are differentiated culturally. For instance, in a society of believers the tribal God is an objective reality. (Though they wouldn't use the term.) In a different society, like ours, Gods and religion are considered subjective experience.
I should also make it clear that singular reality is important and useful to me personally, and I don't deny its value. I just object to the self-abnegation of those who deny that e

Yeah I should've said personal idea of or personal view of what they think reality is ect...

Half of this forum's job to me is to help me formulate an idea using more correct terms so I don't have to formulate it again. Like making a proof for an equation and then forgetting the proof (not that I mean to drag objectivity in here again, but as far as the language of math goes).

1 Reply

@Scottydamion,

Scottydamion;130638 wrote:

Yeah I should've said personal idea of or personal view of what they think reality is ect...

Half of this forum's job to me is to help me formulate an idea using more correct terms so I don't have to formulate it again. Like making a proof for an equation and then forgetting the proof (not that I mean to drag objectivity in here again, but as far as the language of math goes).

One of the reasons I like this forum is the motivation it gives me to clarify my thoughts. The antelope's hoof is sculpted by the predator's tooth?

0 Replies

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;130577 wrote:

Well, maybe if you'd listen to him you'd realize philosophy isn't the preparation of toast.

You know, I missed that. Now lift the clouds of unknowing.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;130687 wrote:

You know, I missed that. Now lift the clouds of unknowing.

1. Place bread in toaster
2. Push down bar on right side to start
3. Set the heat level between 1 and 10
4. When you see the bread pop up it is toasted
5. (Optional) Spread butter on the warm toast
6. Consume by holding with at least one hand and bringing toast to the mouth, bite down, chew, swallow, repeat step 6 until toast is gone

0 Replies

@housby,

The river rubs driftwood smooth. (Debate on this forum encourages clarity, wit, etc.)

Ah, "reality." We used to want God on our side. Now it's "reality." Give me my lucky charms!

1 Reply

@Reconstructo,

is there a consensus developing in this thread that nothing exists except experience? experience is the only reality and reality is necessarily experience?

.... what about the unconscious? Is that 'experienced'? ...... and if not does it therefore not exist? What about the possibility of existence outside consciousness? ..... does that necessarily not exist?

Or can something exist and not be real!??

1 Reply

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know