Definition of Reality

longknowledge
According to Ortega, each of us are involved in our own "reality," namely, our own individual lives. But each our lives consist of an "I" and "My Circumstance."
.......
And part of "My Circumstance" is other entities that appear, by their behavior, to be in the same situation as we are. So while we cannot be within another person's "reality" or "life" in the same sense that they are, we do encounter them in the other part of our "reality" which is Our Circumstance.

From our parents and siblings, from our teachers, and from the various media, we gradually learn a "consensus reality" that most of us can agree on and talk about, but we never can bridge the gap and be or "live" in another person's "reality" or "life" the way that they "live" in it, or the way we "live" in ours.

Ortega seems to have struck gold here! We can't live other people's lives? Holy - :detective:

I would say that our chat right now is an example of the representation of reality. We are talking about that part of reality which includes this same sort of conversation about "reality."

This could all become very holotropic, in a Mandelbrotian kind of way.

Ah, yes. Fractals! I love em. For me, the practical concept of reality works well. The live issue is where we fit in our ideas about this reality. I don't think natural science is equipped to deal with concept and metaphor (except for the scientific method itself). For me, this is where philosophy steps in.

Holy nonsense, Batman!

Are you implying that natural science is the method by which we investigate our concepts, our language use? Of course one can apply statistics and such but I don't see how meaning can be measured. Nor can I conceive what the atomic weight of a metaphor might be.

Metaphors are not atoms.

Thanks! But that's exactly what I'm saying. Science is one quite useful method, but humans require others as well.

It does not follow from the fact that metaphors are not atoms, that metaphors cannot be studied scientifically. Atoms are not the only scientific entities.

I would agree that there are scientific approaches to metaphor. But I suggest such approaches are significantly limited.

in the end those who believe passionately in a grand narrative will not be persuaded until that grand narrative catastrophically fails them and is seen by them to have failed. In the meantime deconstructing and showing the limitations of a grand narrative has little value to them. At best it brings about diversion, avoidance ...... or rarely slight modifications in the vein of the existing narrative. At worst it illicits anger, ridicule and withdrawal. Nobody wants to see fault in that which they are loyal to ...... let alone that which also forms the basis of their identity and understanding of reality.

what remains after you have stopped believing in it.

"My Life," your life, the life of each one of us.

Eureka! I've riddle of the Sphinx, er . . . kennethamy.

He defines reality as:



And Ortega's definition is:



QED

kennethamy turns out to be an Orteguian after all. :flowers:

"My Life," your life, the life of each one of us.

That isn't my definition. It is attributed to Peter Viereck, the American poet.

How is that similar to the definition kennethamy used here?

Our lives are not all that is reality. Our lives are a part of reality, but they are surely not all that is reality. Reality would still be, no matter if we had lived at all - any of us.

How about for a change you share your definition of reality, hmm?



You seem to make a big deal out of "demistifying" other opinions, but you find no problem in stating what you see as obvious, perhaps you need to be demistified to a higher level of inquiry? The gears behind the clock as it were?