Reality is relative, not absolute.

Relative to WHAT exactly?

@Olivier5,

If that was to me .....the answer is that "reality" is a word whose meaning, like any other word, is relative to the context in which it is used. In the Wittgensteinian sense, connotations of "reality" implying "absolutes" are a result of "language on holiday" i.e. philosophical language games which depart from everyday usage.

To restate the point, we don't normally go around questioning the "reality" of everyday "objects". (Therein lies the social road to the label "lunacy") Consensus prevails, We only tend to use that word when questioning the "reality" of controversial issues like "global warming", "animal rights" or "existence of deities". Simply delimiting the group by consensus would be sufficient for establishing contextual "reality" for that group.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

If that was to me .....the answer is that "reality" is a word whose meaning, like any other word, is relative to the context in which it is used. In the Wittgensteinian sense, connotations of "reality" implying "absolutes" are a result of "language on holiday" i.e. philosophical language games which depart from everyday usage.

To restate the point, we don't normally go around questioning the "reality" of everyday "objects". (Therein lies the social road to the label "lunacy") Consensus prevails, We only tend to use that word when questioning the "reality" of controversial issues like "global warming", "animal rights" or "existence of deities". Simply delimiting the group by consensus would be sufficient for establishing contextual "reality" for that group.

But whatever actually IS, Fresco...is what actually IS...

...despite the fact that you and the authorities upon whom you rely want to assert that what IS...is not actually what is.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Reality is what is agreed about in particular contexts involving like minded participants.

So you'd conclude that beings which are incapable of forming an agreement with "like-minded participants" have no sense of reality, correct?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

"reality" is a word whose meaning, like any other word, is relative to the context in which it is used

Oh you meant the word "reality"? Of course the meaning of each and every word ever forged is relative to their respective language, usage, context, etc...

The same is true of any other word, like "broom", “araignée” or “enqelab”.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
Hoping the world is intelligible is hoping God is true...

Indeed, but science does not require nor postulate that the world is intelligible.

Please take note and make a distinction between hoping and requiring. It is the very practice of Science that implies that hope. When you search for an answer or a solution implicitly you must hope one is possible. Obviously hoping does not mean requiring nor postulating. The irony is not diminished in any way nonetheless...

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Define "sense of reality" ? Are you implying a "state of consciousness" ?

1 Reply

Thanks for the entertaining word smorgasbord.

Check, please.

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Thanks for the entertaining word smorgasbord.

Check, please.

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-EHEOmAoNGTeRc8Gqtd3BNiEfqQC2A1HyXx4q0JRy0n_Uhe-W

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

It is the very practice of Science that implies that hope. When you search for an answer or a solution implicitly you must hope one is possible.

Even if the world is not ultimately intelligible by man, solutions can be found and answers can be given. Only imperfect ones. E.g. we now know that classic Galilean mechanics are imperfectly describing our environment, and that general relativity does a much better job at it (though not perfect either). Yet we still use classic mechanics out of convenience, because it's "good enough" in most circumstances and simpler than relativistic equations.

We may never find the perfect theory that will explain everything accurately and forever. Aka the final truth. And even if we find it, we will never be sure it's the final truth... So in practice, science is not really after the final truth. It's just trying to improve upon forever imperfect models.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Define "sense of reality" ? Are you implying a "state of consciousness" ?

"Sense of reality" is merely a shorthand way to describe the agreement that you posit between like-minded individuals regarding reality. If there is a better term to describe that agreement, please feel free to use it instead.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

I think "sense of reality" is perfectly adequate. For me it reflects the orientation of "social construction of reality, or perhaps a culturally constituted sense of reality.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Quote:

I think "sense of reality" is perfectly adequate. For me it reflects the orientation of "social construction of reality, or perhaps a culturally constituted sense of reality.

Akin to sense of humor, sense of self and or sense of being etc?
A feel for?

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I think "sense of reality" is perfectly adequate. For me it reflects the orientation of "social construction of reality, or perhaps a culturally constituted sense of reality.

Joe can deal with your suggestion that "sense of reality" is adequate.

But you do realize that in that case, you would be dealing with a social construction (construct)...or culturally constituted sense of reality...

...not with whatever the actual REALITY is...

...do you not?

Can either you or Fresco ever finally comprehend the difference between what actually is...and what you (or others in agreement) think it to be...unless the actual REALITY is that it is a construct between humans or of a human?

What I am saying is that your wild, blind guess about the true nature of REALITY may be correct...accidentally, but that it also may be completely off the mark.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

There is a classic piece of work on reporting of "reality" by manipulation of consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

This might indicate that the answer to your question would be "yes" of we identify with the mind of a subject in a context of adverse consensus.

I give this answer cautiously because former encounters with you quite often involve leading questions on your part as attempts at logical entrapment. Hopefully the reference is sufficient in its own right to satisfy your query.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

There is a classic piece of work on reporting of "reality" by manipulation of consensus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

I'm not sure how that answers my question. I want to know about those individuals who are incapable of agreeing with the consensus, not with individuals who are more-or-less pressured into agreeing with the consensus.

Let me see if this makes it clearer: I've never seen a cat or a dog attempt to walk through a wall. That leads me to believe that cats and dogs recognize that the wall is real, to the extent that it has physical attributes, such as height, width, extension, etc. The wall, in other words, is not insubstantial or an illusion, but is real for them in a pragmatic sense. Dogs and cats, however, are incapable of reaching the kind of consensus about reality that you posit. Not only have I never seen a dog attempt to walk through a wall, I've never seen a dog attempt to convince another dog that the wall is real. Consequently, it would appear that there is a substantial population of beings who are able to reach an understanding of what is real without "agreeing about it in particular contexts with like-minded participants." So, are dogs and cats able to perceive (or sense or intuit or whatever) reality without "contextualizing" it in common with other cats and dogs? If not, how are they doing it? And if so, why can they do it when humans apparently can't?

fresco wrote:

I give this answer cautiously because former encounters with you quite often involve leading questions on your part as attempts at logical entrapment. Hopefully the reference is sufficient in its own right to satisfy your query.

You can't expect all the questions to be sycophantic. You have JLN for that.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Oliver, this is one of the most satisfying posts I've read in a long time. It's relativistic pragmatism is very sober and balanced (one might even use the term "wise").
Adequate answers are never "absolutely" perfect but they may be "relatively" satisfactory" regarding their compliance with logical norms and empirical canons of evidence. They may even be adequate with respect to inadequate questions (especially when they are logically "valid" even if not empirically "true"). It is one of my grandest guesses--I don't completely disagree with Frank--that we will never find the perfect answer to a perfect question because we are neurologically incapable of either one. But we can find answers to functionally necessary or desireable questions, such as those of engineering and medicine, i.e., practical expressions of Science*
I think that most of us have philosophical moments of adequacy but in our ambition to overwhelm and humiliate our "opponents" we fall short of contributions to philosophical progress. I like it when I am challenged over the long term. A2K has helped me to take a more realistic and balanced attitude toward my worldview, not by showing me how I am completely wrong and my critics completely right, but by showing me that I and they have views that are inevitably partial rather than complete.

* I tend to visualize Science as a triangle with one side touching Engineering (e.g. medicine), another side touching Philosophy (e.g. truth seeking, with a small "t") and Cosmology/Religion (e.g., truth seeking, with a large "T").

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Please have the courtesy to read what I have written above, I have defined "reality" as a word etc, etc.....Discussion of non-verbal cats and dogs is therefore irrelevant to that definition. And in any case those species who "got it wrong" whatever you want to call that "it", are now extinct.

End of conversation.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Imperfect in relation to what frame of reference ? What should they approximate to ?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Does your word "reality" refers to anything other then it is a word ?

1 Reply

Reality is relative, not absolute.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know