How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Is reality real?   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Is reality real?

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


25 posted 09-22-2007 08:16 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

That just means you're changing the definition of real.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


26 posted 09-22-2007 08:41 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

No.  I am simply implying that everything is equally an existant thing, whether it is more physical or more imaginative, and therefore it is equally real.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


27 posted 09-22-2007 09:17 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Yeah, you are:

quote:
1.true; not merely ostensible, nominal, or apparent: the real reason for an act.
2.existing or occurring as fact; actual rather than imaginary, ideal, or fictitious: a story taken from real life.
3.being an actual thing; having objective existence; not imaginary: The events you will see in the film are real and not just made up.


What I don't get is why you're not comfortable with 'everything' or 'universe' -- don't those words pretty much cover what you're trying to get at?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


28 posted 09-22-2007 09:24 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

My point is an imaginary thing is real in conjunction with being imaginary.   It is not in some void detached from reality, but is equally a part of reality as any other thing.  And that is my basis for calling it real.  

Since when am I not comfortable with "everything" and "universe".  It seems I use these words almost every time I post in philosophy.  


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


29 posted 09-23-2007 11:32 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

And that may be the problem Ess... Every discussion can't become about the most commonly shared trait of "everything", ie naked existence.  The words reality and real in this thread are being spoken of in a particular way of usage.  There are plenty of people who have feigned "love" for others, and their partners, alas, had to discover just how real their devotion was.


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


30 posted 09-24-2007 02:27 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The difference between the question of feigning love and the word real though is that the former is about "true" and "false", but the word real also includes the meaning "existant" (even though the meaning "true" is confused into the same word) so it also treats something it is in contrast with as if it is "nonexistant", and that I think makes a problem in many manners, for a false thing is just as much existant as a true thing, but it becomes treated as "nonexistant" because people use the meaning "true" in the same word where they also use the meaning "existant".


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


31 posted 09-24-2007 02:54 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

There is a computer in front of me.

That is real.

Sharon Agathon, a cylon married to a human from BSG, is standing next to me.

That is imaginary.

All I see is an attempt to muddy the waters if we try to change this simple, yet important, distinction.

True/False distinctions. Well, we have to have a solid definition of what we mean by true.

a computer is not true.

'That there is a computer' or 'that I see a computer' is.

"Sharon Agathon is played by Grace Park" is true.

"Sharon Agathon" by itself is not.

"Sharon Agathon is played by Essorant" is not.

True or truth defines the relationship between a description and the world itself.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


32 posted 09-24-2007 03:25 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

The reflection in a mirror is not obliged to be the object itself in front of the mirror in order to be real and actual.  Nor is an imagined thing obliged to be the object or what it is an imagined thing about in order to be real and actual.  The imagined thing is real as an imagined thing, just as much as Brad is real as Brad, as a rock is real as a rock, as a cloud is real as a cloud.  When a man mistakes Brad as an imagined thing, a rock as a cloud, a cloud as a rock, it is an unfortunate mix up, but everything still remains real      


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


33 posted 09-24-2007 03:34 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

But how does that clear up the distinction between the unreal and the real, unimaginary and the imaginary?

You seem to invest a kind power in the real (as  if calling something 'real' somehow makes it more significant than it is), this may or may not be something to consider later, but I still don't see the point of changing the definition of the word (see above).

Clear up the distinction first.
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


34 posted 09-24-2007 03:42 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

None of it is unreal.  That is the distinction.  It is just different.  

It is like fire, water, earth, and air.  None of the elements is "unreal", but they have very distinct differences.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


35 posted 09-24-2007 03:47 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

But that's not answering the question.

What do you want to call this specific difference?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


36 posted 09-24-2007 05:09 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I think much of the difference is of physical/spiritual.  People are so biased for carnal knowledge they often think only the more physical and solid things "count", so they end up only or mostly treating those things as "real", and then make out things that are not so physical and solid but more spiritual, as some sort of a negation or lack of reality.

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


37 posted 09-24-2007 05:20 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

physical/spiritual?

So imagining Sharon Agathon next to me is a spiritual moment?
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


38 posted 09-24-2007 11:54 AM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

There is a spiritual representation in one way or another, such as a memory or an imagination, but certainly it is in conjunction with physical aspects as well, for example, mistaking someone else, or getting so drunk that your senses treat a representation of something as the thing it is representing itself (one reality or part of reality for another).  

[This message has been edited by Essorant (09-24-2007 12:51 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


39 posted 09-24-2007 12:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Fantasizing about killing someone is also "non-physical", and yet patently unspiritual according to one definition of spiritual.


Brad, excuse me for muddying the water even more.    


But, for the purposes of this discussion, Brad is right.  None of this has anything to do with the question "Is reality real"?  Because this question recognizes a distinction that Essorant isn't willing to make philosophically (though I'm quite sure he really does, from day to day).  


Stephen
Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


40 posted 09-24-2007 02:10 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

I already showed to you that I am not disputing the true/false distinction, in respect to loyalty or correctness.  But whether something is true or false doesn't make it less an existant or actual thing.  A lie is just as existant and actual as a truth.  An imagination is just as existant and actual as the ground under your feet.  The distinction is the great difference between such things, such as the difference of physical/nonphysical.  But unfortunately even some of the sharpest differences don't prevent people from mistaking one thing for another.  

Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


41 posted 09-25-2007 12:56 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Ess, if everything is real, then what is nothing? By defining everything, then you void the meaning of nothing, and thus allow it to become real - eqiation of nothing thus does not exist, thereby not allowing it to have a definition - it's a vicious cycle really .

Ocean, I agree with you wholeheartedly, the perception of reality we experience is only because of the way the our brain recieves and processes information, thus allowing for our perception and reality, to be intrinsically different to others. For example, if you take someone with a visual aphraxia, the rose the Ocean desribed would be different, as their ventral pathway would not be functioning corectly, thus changing the definition of what a "rose" is.

yes, the reality to us would not have changed, but that person's perception will have changed, thus changing his reality and making our reality un-real to him.

Phew, that was compicated

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


42 posted 09-25-2007 12:57 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

I think I may have gotten that wrong.... maybe it was the dorsal pathway.... curses.....

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


43 posted 09-25-2007 01:08 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad


quote:
Ocean, I agree with you wholeheartedly, the perception of reality we experience is only because of the way the our brain recieves and processes information, thus allowing for our perception and reality, to be intrinsically different to others.


But that's it, our brains may be wired differently but we all see, for the most part, the same reality.

quote:
For example, if you take someone with a visual aphraxia, the rose the Ocean desribed would be different, as their ventral pathway would not be functioning corectly, thus changing the definition of what a "rose" is.


But it wouldn't, that someone would know that what he saw wasn't in fact reality. How does he or she know? Because they would talk to others about it.

Uh, did you mean apraxia?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


44 posted 09-25-2007 02:28 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

And though Brad wouldn't call it particularly useful ... the reason they could talk about it, is because of the underlying (or independent) reality of the rose.  

It's a useful idea in an age when such questions as this thread are seriously asked, and people are tending to believe more and more in the prominence of personal subjective reality as opposed to public objective reality.  


Stephen  
Kitherion
Member
since 08-01-2006
Posts 179
Johannesburg


45 posted 09-25-2007 09:48 AM       View Profile for Kitherion   Email Kitherion   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kitherion

Same thing different spelling Brad

"Our Father who art in Heaven... Hallowed be thy name..."

Essorant
Member Elite
since 08-10-2002
Posts 4689
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada


46 posted 09-25-2007 06:15 PM       View Profile for Essorant   Email Essorant   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Essorant's Home Page   View IP for Essorant

Kitherion

Anything you refer to as "nothing" is still something.   Try it for yourself.  When you say "nothing" is there nothing there?

I don't think so.  What you refer to is something that is there instead of something else.  If there is no drink in your glass you may say "nothing is in your glass", but everything is still real.  Drinks are still real, the air in your glass is still real, the glass is still real, your expectation of a drink is real, etc.   It is all real.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


47 posted 09-25-2007 06:39 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
I know it sounds absurd, but is the reality we experience the same for everyone else. Psychologically speaking it isn't, but what about philosophically?


It depends on which reality you’re talking about, there’s actually at least three and the answer differs for each (which is why you’re getting different answers).

There’s individual reality, which is the perception of what is real as experienced by each individual which may or may not be the same.

Then there’s the collective or group reality, which is a sort of democratic agreement among individuals regarding what is real and is shared by the majority.

Finally there’s actual reality, which can’t be known by anyone for sure other than through the filter of individual perception.

Which reality are you talking about?

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Is reality real?   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors