Reality is relative, not absolute.

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Please have the courtesy to read what I have written above, I have defined "reality" as a word etc, etc.....

Thanks for that confirmation. As I noted earlier, you're just talking about words. That's not epistemology, that's linguistics. Nothing terribly new or interesting about that.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

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").

The honor goes to Popper, and Kant before him. What I posted was Popper's philosophy of science in a nutshell. I guess from now on, you should call it "wise realism"... Smile

Because of course, Popper is a pragmatic realist. Even if reality proves ultimately opaque to man's reason, it can exists totally independently from man's reason... The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are pretty coherent.

A good dualist, Popper puts thoughts and physical stuff in different "worlds" (planes of reality). His two worlds of physical stuff and the mind are fundamentally different. So for him the limitation is not neuronal, it's philosophical. Reason will never perfectly map to the rest of reality (physical stuff) because it is fundamentally a different kind of stuff, with its own internal logic different from the world's.

As for me, I haven't lost hope that we can ultimately understand the world. Hence I am still an agnostic. Smile

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Do you understand the move away from traditional epistemology by philosophers ?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Even if reality proves ultimately opaque to man's reason, it can exists totally independently from man's reason... The two ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are pretty coherent.

I agree, Olivier, but there seems to be a strong strain of thought, even in the physical sciences, that one IS the other, i.e., that what we (can or do) "know" defines what reality is. Somehow things like Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle" are deemed to be a matter of ontology, rather than mere epistemology.

Scientists who otherwise want to criticize anthropocentricity in affairs of "knowledge" suddenly become quite the anthropocentrists in this respect. Subjectivism runs rampant. "What we know is reality" gets turned into "Reality is what we know."

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

When you say "other than a word" it implies that you see words as "representional" (perhaps of what you would like to think of as an independent "reality"). I'm coming from the position that words are constructive. They are nodes of "significance" within an active contextual process. Thus in examples of daily usage like :

....She thinks she can cook, but the reality is that she's hopeless.....

What matters pragmatically here is the attempt to get agreement between speakers with regards to their relationship with "her". There may follow a discussion of "evidence" again with a view to consensus, but note the ongoing dynamics of the exchange which is usually aimed at what to do next. Note too that "the exchange" could even be an internal dialogue.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Do you understand the move away from traditional epistemology by philosophers ?

Indeed I do. It's a move away from epistemology toward linguistics. That's fine for those who are interested in linguistics. Not so good for those who are interested in epistemology.

0 Replies

Reality is absolute, what is relative is your perception of it.

Carlos Le Baron.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Imperfect as compared to the phenomena the theories try to explain.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

....She thinks she can cook, but the reality is that she's hopeless.....

I'm just asking,
But isn't his statement one of subjectivity as oppose to one of matter of fact?

Let say" I can boil water but I can't cook." Or "oh there's precipitation falling from the sky... it's raining."

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

no kidding...

0 Replies

@argome321,

You need to get rid of the dichotomy "subjective-objective" if you want to investigate the term "reality". If you examine the use of the word "reality" in ordinary (non philosophical) contexts you will find it refers to the seeking of "consensus" to inform subsequent action. It does not arise where consensus is taken for granted which is largely a result of common physiology and social need. Futile arguments about "the reality of rocks" only arise amongst philosophers who take the word away from normal usage.
(Reference Wittgenstein "meaning is use")

3 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

I agree, Olivier, but there seems to be a strong strain of thought, even in the physical sciences, that one IS the other, i.e., that what we (can or do) "know" defines what reality is.

Once again, don't confuse pseudo-philosophical blah-blah-blah (including much of what passes for philosophy on A2K) with real science, which is based on curiosity for the unknown and therefore presupposes that there is much more to reality than what we know of it. Anyone equating reality to what we know if it has zero curiosity, and therefore cannot make a good scientist.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Anyone doubting the reality of rocks should have his head smashed by said rocks, to see how that unreal rock rocks his brain...

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

You need to get rid of the dichotomy "subjective-objective" if you want to investigate the term "reality". If you examine the use of the word "reality" in ordinary (non philosophical) contexts you will find it refers to the seeking of "consensus" to inform subsequent action. It does not arise where consensus is taken for granted which is largely a result of common physiology and social need. Futile arguments about "the reality of rocks" only arise amongst philosophers who take the word away from normal usage.
(Reference Wittgenstein "meaning is use")

At some point...you will finally come to grips with the difference between the REALITY...and" examinations of reality" "speaking of reality" "opinions about reality" "social consensus of reality"...and all that other garbage you confuse with REALITY.

REALITY...is whatever IS, Fresco.

(I think I've mentioned that before.)

0 Replies

@carloslebaron,

carloslebaron wrote:

Reality is absolute, what is relative is your perception of it.

Carlos Le Baron.

That has been mentioned to Fresco hundreds of times in this thread and many others over the last decade and a half.

He simply cannot understand it...or more probably, will not understand it.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

You need to get rid of the dichotomy "subjective-objective" if you want to investigate the term "reality". If you examine the use of the word "reality" in ordinary (non philosophical) contexts you will find it refers to the seeking of "consensus" to inform subsequent action. It does not arise where consensus is taken for granted which is largely a result of common physiology and social need. Futile arguments about "the reality of rocks" only arise amongst philosophers who take the word away from normal usage.
(Reference Wittgenstein "meaning is use")

.
Translated:
yada yada yada Bullshit!

You still haven't answered the question,

You have your references I have mine.

Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

re·al·i·ty
rēˈalədē/
noun
1.
the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"
synonyms: the real world, real life, actuality; More
antonyms: fantasy
a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is grim or problematic.
plural noun: realities
"the harsh realities of life in a farming community"
synonyms: fact, actuality, truth
"the harsh realities of life"
a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind.
"the paperless office may yet become a reality"
the quality of being lifelike or resembling an original.
"the reality of Marryat's detail"
synonyms: verisimilitude, authenticity, realism, fidelity, faithfulness
"the reality of Steinbeck's detail"
relating to reality TV.
modifier noun: reality
"a reality show"
2.
the state or quality of having existence or substance.
"youth, when death has no reality"

b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily

From what little I read of Wttgenstein he seem to be a confused man at times.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Well wikied !
Have fun !

0 Replies

@layman,

Or as the sage would say, "our reality is how we perceive it."

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Anyone doubting the reality of rocks should have his head smashed by said rocks, to see how that unreal rock rocks his brain...

Boswell: Sam, how do you refute Berkeley's solipsism?

Samuel Johnson: I refute it thusly...

(Sam kicks a rock)....

Kinda funny that he didn't, and didn't need to, say a single word, eh?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

Samuel Johnson: I refute it thusly...

(Sam kicks a rock)....

Confess I know none of the characters in that story... Embarrassed

I googled Berkeley and found:

George Berkeley (/ˈbɑrkleɪ/[1] or /ˈbɑrklɪ/;[2] 12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753), also known as Bishop Berkeley (Bishop of Cloyne), was an Anglo-Irish philosopher whose primary achievement was the advancement of a theory he called "immaterialism" (later referred to as "subjective idealism" by others). This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like tables and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived.
(Wiki)

So that idea is a rather old one... So much for "modern philosophers".

0 Replies

Reality is relative, not absolute.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know