Definition of Reality

@housby,

Dear Paul
Near Peter

Exactly,..it is an idea taken of Plato's cave allegory as someone had stated that (or was it you). Anyway, i am glad atleast you understood the storyline. Now to the message for Philosophy's sake.

You are slightly off the track in your gathering of the idea. And that thing is notable because, the child's perceiving something is not an 'act', as you put it. Technically speaking. I can understand your intention in trying to formalise your understanding.

Now, coming to your summation - your keywords are: not in conflict; indirect and distorted experience.

See, try to be clear in mind (a humble request)...... What is your criteria in saying that the child's perception (you can add your adjectives..real,unreal, actual or whatever etc)....is NOT in CONFLICT. The view, or perception, or understanding of the child in his mind is in contradiction to the actual physical attributes of the parents.

How there is a contradiction?.... The contradiction will become obvious when the child is led out of his room and sees his parents directly and sees them to be right-handed. Hence there is a Conflict. The Conflict in the mind will be blatant as it would take him a while to understand the fact that his parents are right handed. Once the Confusion is cleared, he will realise (real - ise) the Reality of the righthandedness of his parents.

Now, what would go in his mind. Realisation will reveal that that which he 'thought' was a feature of lefthandednes of his parents was not true (somehow). And therefore, what ever he perceived or thought of in the past as true or real was in fact, in the light of direct experience and knowledge now, is not true at all and therefore a Non- Reality.

In this case the transition from one room to another from one fact (perceived one ) to another fact (direct experience) , from the false to truth, from unreal to real, by way of accurate and actual knowledge or experience has led his mind to be clear.

You have also pointed out the 'normal' indirection and distortion due to mediation of the senses, which can add to the problem of perception. this problem is a given, we cannot change the nature of our sensory mechanism. For example a shade of purple for one person may look like a shade of pink to the other. Thats normal.

And for the same reason, therefore, perception is tricky. Infact unreliable.

The argument that perception is also real is valid. I am not arguing that inspite of my arguments above. What is to be understood, and thats pertinent, is that perception leads to conflict, fanatism, war, discord, disagreement, each believing in theoir own perceived facts, truths or Realities.......... blinding the world.

0 Replies

@housby,

housby;122713 wrote:

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.

If your doubts about whether life is a dream are genuine, then you really need help, I am afraid. What makes you think that your doubt whether that chair is real is genuine? You sit on it. You expect it to hold you up. People who believe the chair is an hallucination don't do that kind of thing. I am by no means doubting your sincerity. It is a peculiar thing about philosophers (first remarked on by the philosopher, G.E. Moore) that philosophers sometimes sincerely claim to believe what they do not really believe. For instance, they claim to believe that Time is unreal, but they make appointments, anyway. They claim to believe that the chair they sit on is unreal, but they sit on it and expect the unreal chair to hold them up, anyway. And all these claims are sincere. They are not lying, or being deceptive. But, as Peirce would say, they do not believe these things "in their heart". I suppose Peirce believed that actions speak louder than words. And, so do I.

1 Reply

@housby,

It is a matter of pre-suppositions and underlying attitudes to philosophy and life itself. Some people are very comfortable in their sense of conventional reality. For them, philosophy is rather like the old Space Invaders arcade game, in which all of these fallacious arguments and strange points of view start to cascade down the screen, and the game is to zap them as they descend before they touch down and you loose points. Others are much less convinced that our conventional sense of normality has any real depth to it; there is a nagging feeling that social life, etc, might be a kind of facade, or charade, which carries on without any real meaning or purpose until rudely interupted by death which is The End. It is difficult or impossible for the latter to convince the former that this nagging feeling amounts to anything, so the Conventionalist will usually presume the the Other is somehow deluded, mistaken or perhaps slightly mentally unsound.

1 Reply

@housby,

If one's sense of reality is not anchored in the realm of the numinous whether this is conceived as Diety or in some other metaphorical depiction of the supreme wisdom, then one must declare that there is no reality beyond that which can be measured by scientific instruments and analysed by the profane intellect. In other words, 'this world', a.k.a 'the objective realm', or 'material reality'. From the point of view of traditional wisdom, which is inimical to most modern philosophies, this amounts to a declaration that 'the unreal alone is real'. Hence all the vertigo and confusion of modernity, which is masked but not ameliorated by the determined clinging to normality and 'being distracted from distraction by distraction' as T.S. Elliott said.

However the viewpoint that the empirical world is simply illusory ('maya') and reality itself is some separate realm or idealised state of being is also a form of dualism. Mahayana Buddhism alone dissolves this antinomy to by declaring that 'nirvana and samsara are not separate realms'. This is also fundamental to Zen Buddhism which locates the transcendent reality in the very heart of this one and provides entry to a 'larger reality' by providing insight into of the real nature of worldly experience. This is the rationale for the discipline of Zen and the 'realization of emptiness' - which is quite different from the mystical ideas of an 'all-embracing ecstatic union with the ultimate'.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122934 wrote:

If one's sense of reality is not anchored in the realm of the numinous whether this is conceived as Diety or in some other metaphorical depiction of the supreme wisdom, then one must declare that there is no reality beyond that which can be measured by scientific instruments and analysed by the profane intellect.

... must one? ... let's regress a billion or so years to a time when there was no numinous experience, no scientific instruments, nor any intellect to speak of - was there no reality beyond these then? ... now let's jump a billion or so years in the other direction when we might find inconceivable (inhuman?) experience, inconceivable technology, and inconceivable intellect - is this a reality beyond ours? ... that is, I don't think it's necessary to invoke "the supreme wisdom" in order to experience the epiphany that "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose" (Haldane) ... one merely needs to reflect upon evolution - e.g., that evolution proceeds with or without our consent; that the evolutionary reasons for the senses and the intellect do not include accurate representations and intuitions of reality but rather pragmatic ones; etc. ...

0 Replies

@housby,

Well I must. I don't know about others. I think the point I am coming to is that all of our scientific knowledge, no matter how extensive and profound, is still somehow at arm's length from us. It already starts from a pre-supposition about the nature of reality. It is what can be studied through the Hubble and the LHC. It is the big wide Universe and everything in it. 'Cosmos - it's all there is'.

But from another viewpoint, reality is lived experience: something more than just a collection of phenomena, laws and principles. The reality is that we have to live our lives, figure out how to get along and use our technology, which is not a scientific matter at all.

I think the scientific attitude, by insisting on the criterion of objectivity, will always relegate reality in this sense to the realm of the personal or the private. It is therefore relativised and also somewhat trivialised. In a liberal democracy, one's right to conscience is respected, which is important. It means among other things that we give constitutional protection to religions, and that 'everyone's viewpoint is given equal respect. But there is after all no difference between any of them from the 'scientific' viewpoint - there is no scientific basis to differentiate wisdom from cult nonsense. So there are many 'different views' of reality in this realm; in contrast to the so-called 'objective reality' which is described by science. That is more or less the state of chaos that we live with nowadays. In the absence of the spiritual traditions, there really is no objective - I hate to use that word - basis for morality, for moral law. The idea of moral law is relegated to individual conscience. It seems that the only choices are either that, or theocracy. That is the dilemma we have.

I believe that humans really need to understand reality from a different viewpoint, that of the non-dual awareness. This arises from an immediate awareness of the non-division of the personal and private and the world. It means you are the world. Obviously I am taking this from the Eastern spiritual traditions. It is at once an outlook and a way of living. This viewpoint is not really available from within the confines of western liberal democracy. But it is something that can be aspired to, and learned from. It is also being taken seriously by many scientists. It is not religious in a conventional sense, but it is also not purely objective.

(I have also found a very interesting contemporary philosopher called Teed Rockwell, who is a western non-dualist.)

Anyway - provided you just see a world 'out there' in which we are all private selves, no matter how good your science is, you won't know too much of reality in that larger sense.

---

(1) Heraclitus: "The many live each in their own private world, while those who are awakened have but one world in common'.

Teed Rockwell "Neither Brain nor Ghost"

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

I've been away, and I see the mice have been playing.

reality, n.

I. The quality or state of being real.

1. Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena.

2. a. The quality of being real or having an actual existence.
2. b. Correspondence to fact; truth. Obs.
2. c. Of an intention, profession, etc.: the fact of being genuine, sometimes subjectively. Obs.
2. d. Resemblance to what is real or to an original, esp. in literary or artistic works.

3. Something that is real; a real fact or state of things; (also) the real nature of something. Freq. in pl.

4. a. Sincere devotion or loyalty (to a person); sincerity or honesty of character or purpose. Freq. with to. Obs.
4. b. A sincere expression of opinion or feeling. Obs.

5. a. That which constitutes the actual thing, as distinguished from what is merely apparent or external.
5. b. The real nature or constitution of something; the real thing or state of things.
5. c. With modifying adjectives, as harsh reality, grim reality, stark reality, etc.: the actual circumstances or facts regarded as oppressive or unpleasant, esp. in contrast to an idealized or imagined state of affairs.

II. Uses in Law.

6. a. = REALTY n.2 2b; (also) an item of real property. Cf. PERSONALTY n. 2.Obs.
6. b. The quality, in a law, of concerning property rather than persons. Obs.
　

Of course, "My Life" is the "Radical Reality and so is yours! :flowers:

1 Reply

@longknowledge,

longknowledge;122973 wrote:

1. Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena.

(2) and (3) are alternative usages, because they are quite different. The aggregate of real things is one type of concept (like the mass of the universe; anyway we can't account for most of that any more); 'that which underlies and is the truth' is more a metaphysical definition.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;122818 wrote:

It is a matter of pre-suppositions and underlying attitudes to philosophy and life itself. Some people are very comfortable in their sense of conventional reality. For them, philosophy is rather like the old Space Invaders arcade game, in which all of these fallacious arguments and strange points of view start to cascade down the screen, and the game is to zap them as they descend before they touch down and you loose points. Others are much less convinced that our conventional sense of normality has any real depth to it; there is a nagging feeling that social life, etc, might be a kind of facade, or charade, which carries on without any real meaning or purpose until rudely interupted by death which is The End. It is difficult or impossible for the latter to convince the former that this nagging feeling amounts to anything, so the Conventionalist will usually presume the the Other is somehow deluded, mistaken or perhaps slightly mentally unsound.

It is not exactly an assumption that a person who believes he is Napoleon the First in the year 2010 is mentally unsound (and more than slightly).

---------- Post added 01-27-2010 at 08:17 AM ----------

jeeprs;122818 wrote:

It is a matter of pre-suppositions and underlying attitudes to philosophy and life itself. Some people are very comfortable in their sense of conventional reality. For them, philosophy is rather like the old Space Invaders arcade game, in which all of these fallacious arguments and strange points of view start to cascade down the screen, and the game is to zap them as they descend before they touch down and you loose points. Others are much less convinced that our conventional sense of normality has any real depth to it; there is a nagging feeling that social life, etc, might be a kind of facade, or charade, which carries on without any real meaning or purpose until rudely interupted by death which is The End. It is difficult or impossible for the latter to convince the former that this nagging feeling amounts to anything, so the Conventionalist will usually presume the the Other is somehow deluded, mistaken or perhaps slightly mentally unsound.

I think that you are not really talking about what "reality" means. It means (roughly) what is not illusory. What you are talking about is what is illusory and what is not illusory. I know that some religions hold that what is conventionally thought to be non-illusory (real) is actually illusory. (Plato thought this too. He distinguished between "appearance" and "reality"). After this is cleared up, the question shifts from metaphysics to epistemology. What reasons are there to suppose that what we take to be reality is only appearance? And that reality ("the really real") is something different?

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;122758 wrote:

If your doubts about whether life is a dream are genuine, then you really need help, I am afraid. What makes you think that your doubt whether that chair is real is genuine? You sit on it. You expect it to hold you up. People who believe the chair is an hallucination don't do that kind of thing. I am by no means doubting your sincerity. It is a peculiar thing about philosophers (first remarked on by the philosopher, G.E. Moore) that philosophers sometimes sincerely claim to believe what they do not really believe. For instance, they claim to believe that Time is unreal, but they make appointments, anyway. They claim to believe that the chair they sit on is unreal, but they sit on it and expect the unreal chair to hold them up, anyway. And all these claims are sincere. They are not lying, or being deceptive. But, as Peirce would say, they do not believe these things "in their heart". I suppose Peirce believed that actions speak louder than words. And, so do I.

It's a shame, Kenneth, that you don't actually read other posts correctly as you do argue very well. If I have any doubts about reality it is purely in the abstract as a point of consideration and argument. If you carefully read any post in any section I have submitted on this issue you will find that I have never said that I believe "life is a dream" (neither do I row my boat gently up the stream). The fact that you seem to think I "need help" for purely putting forward an argument that is not even remotely original (there have been thousands before me, far more eloquent) suggests that you may have a slight problem with keeping an open mind (I may of course be wrong). I am not a professional "philosopher" or even a teacher of any kind, I am simply someone who thinks a lot and asks the questions that arise from that. I take the time to read what I can if it interests me enough and relate to others for their views (as per this kind of site). The rest of my time (98% of it) I get on with the business of trying to bring up a family, working and getting drunk (which I think makes me pretty ordinary).
Regardless of what "Pierce" says (whoever he is - forgive my ignorance) I have doubts and they are real, not necessarily the subject of those doubts. Incidentally, if we really believe something in our hearts doesn't it follow that that is not a doubt? It seems odd to suggest a doubt is only a doubt if you really believe it. In fact, logically, it's impossible. Perhaps you could enlighten me on Pierce's take on this?
Finally, with regard to your mention of time, have you ever considered the fact that "time" may be man made? There is growth & decay, movement, night and day, cause & effect but if you remove clocks and calendars what exactly are you left with? Making appointments is ok (it's actually what I do a great deal of in my work) because they are man-made also and so fit in with "time" as we know it. Just a thought for another time and place!!

---------- Post added 01-27-2010 at 01:24 PM ----------

jeeprs;122818 wrote:

It is a matter of pre-suppositions and underlying attitudes to philosophy and life itself. Some people are very comfortable in their sense of conventional reality. For them, philosophy is rather like the old Space Invaders arcade game, in which all of these fallacious arguments and strange points of view start to cascade down the screen, and the game is to zap them as they descend before they touch down and you loose points. Others are much less convinced that our conventional sense of normality has any real depth to it; there is a nagging feeling that social life, etc, might be a kind of facade, or charade, which carries on without any real meaning or purpose until rudely interupted by death which is The End. It is difficult or impossible for the latter to convince the former that this nagging feeling amounts to anything, so the Conventionalist will usually presume the the Other is somehow deluded, mistaken or perhaps slightly mentally unsound.

Well said. We seem to agree on many things. I think you are getting my drift better than most.

1 Reply

@housby,

Reality is not a property of the universe. Reality is a poorly defined term that we use and which means different things to different people. Hence all the disagreement about what is "real". To any given individual their subjective experience is part of "their" reality but others are not privy to your private experience only their own. So reality may be that experience which we can all in common share or reality may be that which you alone experience. In any event there are many things which can be experienced which are not, some things are which humans can never experience, and so the "total reality" of the universe always lies outside the individual experience of any one human life and perhaps outside human experience altogether.

0 Replies

@housby,

housby;122997 wrote:

If I have any doubts about reality it is purely in the abstract as a point of consideration and argument.

I believe you really think you are doubting what you say you are. The question I am raising is whether you are really doubting what you say you are doubting. A person who really doubt that (say) there is a table in front of him will not place a vase (which he doubts exists) full of water (ditto) on that table. What you seem to mean by "doubting in the abstract" is what Peirce called "fake" or "paper" doubt. The fact that you believe you doubt does not certify that you really doubt, any more than that you believe that there is table in front of you, certifies that there really is a table in front of you. In either case, your belief (that you doubt) or (that there is a table) may very well be completely sincere, but you may, nevertheless, be mistaken. You allow you may be mistaken about the table, even if you believe there is a table; then why can't you allow that you may be mistaken about whether you doubt, even if you sincerely believe that you doubt? We can test whether there really is a table in front of you by inferring from your belief the consequences of that belief. Thus, if there really is a table in front of you, you will be able to do things, and others will confirm your belief. So, if you really doubt there is a table in front of you, that also can be tested in terms of its consequences. If you doubt there is a table in front of you, you will not place a vase full of water on it. But if you do, then isn't that evidence that you do not really doubt that there is a table in front of you. Would anyone who doubted the existence of the table place a vase of water on it?

If you can doubt the existence of the table, why can't you doubt the existence of your doubt?

By the way; I did not say you need help. I said that if you really thought that life was a dream, that you needed help ( perhaps you ought to read more carefully, too). And, I have been saying that you don't really believe that life is but a dream. Since, your actions belie your having such a belief. So, I am off that hook.

1 Reply

@housby,

So is the definition of "reality"
A scientific problem?
A philosophical problem?
or just a language problem?
We tend to attach more "value" to the real than the imaginary.
We tend to want those things which have value for us to be "real".

1 Reply

@prothero,

prothero;123078 wrote:

So is the definition of "reality"
A scientific problem?
A philosophical problem?
or just a language problem?
We tend to attach more "value" to the real than the imaginary.
We tend to want those things which have value for us to be "real".

I don't think that most definitions are scientific problems. Words have the meaning that fluent speakers of the language give them by using them. Yes, diamonds are more valuable when they exist. It would be difficult to sell an imaginary diamond, or even wear one.

---------- Post added 01-27-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

prothero;123014 wrote:

Reality is not a property of the universe. Reality is a poorly defined term that we use and which means different things to different people. Hence all the disagreement about what is "real". To any given individual their subjective experience is part of "their" reality but others are not privy to your private experience only their own. So reality may be that experience which we can all in common share or reality may be that which you alone experience. In any event there are many things which can be experienced which are not, some things are which humans can never experience, and so the "total reality" of the universe always lies outside the individual experience of any one human life and perhaps outside human experience altogether.

In English, to say that X is real is to deny that X is imaginary, or hallucinatory. People may have different personal associations with the term, but those are not part of the descriptive meaning of the term. The same is true of the word "dog". It means a domestic animal of a certain kind. Different people have different personal associations with the term: fear them, dislike them, believe they are loyal and friendly: but those are not part of the descriptive meaning of "dog".

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;123104 wrote:

I don't think that most definitions are scientific problems. Words have the meaning that fluent speakers of the language give them by using them. Yes, diamonds are more valuable when they exist. It would be difficult to sell an imaginary diamond, or even wear one.

---------- Post added 01-27-2010 at 05:04 PM ----------

In English, to say that X is real is to deny that X is imaginary, or hallucinatory. People may have different personal associations with the term, but those are not part of the descriptive meaning of the term. The same is true of the word "dog". It means a domestic animal of a certain kind. Different people have different personal associations with the term: fear them, dislike them, believe they are loyal and friendly: but those are not part of the descriptive meaning of "dog".

So then my subjective experience is "real"?
Numbers are real?
Concepts are real?
How does one draw the line between imaginary and real?

2 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;123123 wrote:

So then my subjective experience is "real"?
Numbers are real?
Concepts are real?
How does one draw the line between imaginary and real?

As I said before, if something remains when you stop believing in it, it is real.

1 Reply

@housby,

Or so you say. But in the interests of not going around in this particular circle one more time, I will not take the bait.

Meanwhile, if anyone is interested, the book I mentionied previously 'The Theological Origins of Modernity' by Michael Allen Gillespie has now arrived from Amazon. First rate and very germane to this discussion. I wish owned a bookshop sometimes.

0 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;123131 wrote:

As I said before, if something remains when you stop believing in it, it is real.

Seems a little nebulous there, maybe you can directly answer the questions, as asked.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

Let's go back to Definition 1, which by the way came from the Oxford English Dictionary Online, as did the others:

Quote:

Originally Posted by longknowledge
1. Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena.

There are several problems with this definition:

First, it is actually at least four definitions:

1. reality is real existence
2. reality is what is real rather than imagined or desired
3. reality is the aggregate of real things or existences
4. reality is that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena

Second, 1, 2 and 3 are quasi-circular in that they require us to refer to the meaning of the word "real." [More about this later.]

Third, 2, 3 and 4 could be analyzed by considering the word "or" to require a further breakdown as follows:

1. reality is real existence
2a. reality is what is real rather than imagined
2b. reality is what is real rather than desired
3a. reality is the aggregate of real things
3b. reality is the aggregate of real existences
4a. reality is that which underlies and is the truth of appearances
4b. reality is that which underlies and is the truth of phenomena

Fourth, we also have to understand the meaning(s) of the words "existence," " imagined," "desired," "aggregate," "things,""existences," "underlies," "truth," "appearances" and "phenomena," most of which have been or could be the subject of a discussion in this Forum or in other Forums (Fora?).

Now here are my comments on the above definitions, based on an Orteguian theory of reality:

First, the notions of "existence" or "existences" implies that reality is "out there" (ex-ist). This requires that there be a "here" for which there is an "out there." According to Ortega's theory, this "here" is the "I," the person who experiences the "out there," or what he calls "my circumstance." Note that by calling it "my" circumstance, he implies that it is imminent to "my I" or "me."

Second, Ortega further postulates that both the "here," "my I," and the "out there," "my circumstance," are both within the reality that is "my life." Thus his famous formula, "I am I and my circumstance" is to be understood as "My life consists of my I and my circumstance." A corollary of this theory of "ex-ist-ance" is that from the point of view or perspective of "my circumstance," "my I" is or "ex-ists" outside of it!

Third, according to Ortega's theory, "my circumstance" consists of "things" that "occur" to "my I," or to "me," including what is "imagined" or "desired," as well as what is "perceived," "conceived," "dreamed," "hallucinated," etc.; that is, all "appearances" or "phenomena" that "occur" to "my I." [If "my I" is having a hallucination, is my hallucination a "real" hallucination or an "imaginary" hallucination." If "my I" has a desire, is my desire a "real" desire, or a "hallucination"?] Again, a corollary of this is that at the same time that "my circumstance" is "occurring" to "my I," "my I" is "occurring" to "my circumstance"!

Fourth, again according to Ortega's theory, if there is something that is an "aggregate" of "things" or "existences," or that "underlies" or "is the truth of" those "appearances" or "phenomena" that "occur" to "my I" or to "me," it can only "occur" as an "idea," however justified, that is "conceived" within the reality that is "my life."

Fifth, "my life" is the "radical" reality in that all other realities "occur" or are "rooted" within it. (The word "radical" comes from the Latin word radix meaning "root.")

Now as to the meaning of the word "real," I give the following for your consideration:

I. That actually exists, or relates to this.
1. a. Having an objective existence; actually existing physically as a thing, substantial; not imaginary.
1. b. Philos. Designating whatever is regarded as having an existence in fact and not merely in appearance, thought, or language, or as having an absolute and necessary, in contrast to a merely contingent, existence.
2. Actually existing or present as a state or quality of things; having a foundation in fact; actually occurring or happening. Also: expressing a subjective relation to a person; actual, significant; able to be grasped by the imagination. See also REAL LIFE n., REAL WORLD n.
3. Philos. Relating or attached to the doctrine of the objective existence of universals (see REALISM n. 2). Opposed to NOMINAL adj. 2. Obs.
4. a. gen. Relating to or concerned with things. Obs.
4. b. Of written characters: representing things instead of sounds; ideographic. Now hist.
4. c. Consisting of actual things. Obs. rare.
5. Math. Of a number or quantity: having no imaginary part. Hence: relating to or involving such quantities or functions of them. Opposed to IMAGINARY adj. 1c.
6. Physics. Of an image: such that the light forming it actually reaches it, so that the image can be captured on a surface. Opposed to VIRTUAL adj. 4c. Cf. IMAGE n. 3a.
II. Relating to immovable property.
7. Law. Opposed to PERSONAL adj. 7.
7. a. Of or relating to specific things, esp. land; spec. relating to or consisting of the possession or ownership of immovable or 'real' property (see sense A. 7c and IMMOVABLE adj. 3).
7. b. Of actions, pleas, etc.: for the recovery of a particular object or immovable (or 'real') property. Freq. in real action (now hist.: see note at PERSONAL adj. 7a). Cf. also MIXED adj.2 2a.
7. c. Being or consisting of immovable property, such as land and anything erected on or attached to this. Freq. in real property. See also chattel real at CHATTEL n. 4b, things real at THING n.1 12b, REAL ESTATE n., and ESTATE n. 11.
III. That corresponds to or expresses what exists.
8. Corresponding to actuality; true. Freq. in real facts, real story.
9. a. That is actually and truly such as its name implies; possessing the essential qualities denoted by its name; genuine, undoubted. Also as an intensifier: veritable.
9. b. Esp. of a precious metal, stone, or similar material: natural, as opposed to artificial, imitation, or depicted.
9. c. Music. Of a sequence or a fugal answer: transposed so as to preserve the intervals of the original melody or subject.
10. a. That is the actual thing or person; that properly bears the name. Cf. real horizon at HORIZON n. 3a, the real McCoy at MCCOY n.
10. b. That is actually present or involved (as opposed to apparent, ostensible, etc.).
11. a. Sincere, straightforward, honest. Obs.
11. b. True or loyal to another. Obs.
11. c. Free from nonsense, affectation, or pretence; genuine. Also more generally: aware of, or in touch with, real life; down-to-earth.
12. Essential, important. Obs.
　
I'll let you ponder over those until my next posting. :flowers:

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;123123 wrote:

So then my subjective experience is "real"?
Numbers are real?
Concepts are real?
How does one draw the line between imaginary and real?

For the sake of greater clarity here, let us take the language as a tool to better understandings, i.e., if you allow my intervention.

Long Knowledge had given us enoughs clue's on the aspects of the word 'real' and 'reality'.

Here's an explanatory way of finding the meaning, and their application in language.

Subjective experience is 'real' to the one who is experiencing. But is 'not Real' to others who are not experiencing the same. hence subjective. thats obvious, isn't it?
But the problem lies when ones so-called 'real' experience is taken up in general and by saying 'Thats Reality'. The fault lies in such a extrapolation. The individual 'real' cannot be the general 'Reality'. Hope this comes out clear.

Numbers are always abstract........ it is not real. The misconception is universal or general because of faulty educational planning or system.

Concepts are always Unreal, it is abstract, it is notional, it is metephorical, it is representative. Used in language by terms as a representation of conceptual ideas. A couple of Example's on concepts:

1) Forests - word representation of group of trees or any vegetation.------ keyword is trees or vegetation or flora (again a conceptual representation for all biotic plants with chlorophyl).
2) Clergy: - word representation of a group or section of men or women, also refered to or called as people (people again is a concept) of a class called priests (again a conceptual reperesentation). key word is men or women.

(hope Long Knowledge agrees)

0 Replies

Definition of Reality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know