Sure; and that is what Austin has given you. I had supposed you had seen this, seems I was mistaken....my purpose in starting this discussion was to examine "real" and "reality" from an ontological perspective. — T Clark
Τhat's irrelevant and philosophically null. — Nickolasgaspar
- Its philosophically null to talk about whether "that is a real tree" instead of "is that tree real". — Nickolasgaspar
The first question is what his OP was addressing and the second is essentially what you are attempting to address by using a different meaning of the word ''real". — Nickolasgaspar
This:What is my approach? — Nickolasgaspar
It's mere pretence to claim this is a scientific definition. It is as "vague and general" as any thing else on offer, since it fails to set out what counts as an element. As I did explain earlier, what counts as a simple is dependent on what one is doing. Basic stuff.Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations. — Nickolasgaspar
Did we have any conversations before? Is this a pay back time type of interaction? — Nickolasgaspar
I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno
-Red herring. Austin Normative Philosophy on Ontology is irrelevant to our Epistemic Approach on what is real.I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the article. — Banno
As I've said enough times to drive even me crazy, I don't think whether or not objective reality exists is a question of fact. I think it's a metaphysical question with no truth value. — T Clark
Is there a truth value to "Objective reality is not a question of fact." — PhilosophyRunner
If there is a truth value to the above statement, does that not show objective reality does exist. — PhilosophyRunner
No. The truth value of a proposition is not sufficient for proof of existence. Truth value is nothing but logical relation to the LNC and resides nowhere else than propositions. Proof of existence, for humans, is experience. — Mww
Yes. It is true objective reality is not a question of fact.
Is not a preposition that is true, linked to a fact? — PhilosophyRunner
That fact exists, if nothing else. — PhilosophyRunner
Sure, I have no issues as long as it isn't used as a red herring allowing others to avoid addressing the "problems" in my definition on " what qualifies as real."
The problem with that specific definition of the term real(as you stated is that a real tree) is that it has a huge spread, meaning that different entities in existence have different characteristics and most probably the answer can be gained by doing science(not philosophy)... — Nickolasgaspar
There is a philosophical aspect in that question (what makes something a real "something".) but it can either be a very short conversation or an endless one with nothing important to gain. — Nickolasgaspar
Sure; and that is what Austin has given you. I had supposed you had seen this, seems I was mistaken. — Banno
I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a narrow view of ontology and then suppose that "that's not ontology" constitutes an argument. I find that most puzzling. So the use of "ontological" seems to have slide from the study of existence to the study of physical stuff. — Banno
I'd taken the OP to be related to the thread "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". — Banno
Reality is by definition the containing medium of anything you're able to interact with. — Hallucinogen
Reality and what is real are defined by the ability of elements and their structures to interact with each other and being registered by our observations. — Nickolasgaspar
I know how it works but I am an old "fart" and my habits define my typing!
My eyes are trained to search for this pattern (-"bla bla bla ") and all those(
) get in my nerves! lol
After all I doubt there is anything interesting in my writings to read. I won't be offended if you ignore my posts Tom, seriously. (maybe I could use B or I)
— Tom Storm — Nickolasgaspar
That is not a standard definition of "reality." — T Clark
I think in absentia of the principle Nickolasgaspar and I put forward, people don't have a coherent idea of reality. An "independent" existence of the surrounding medium isn't defensible, and what we imagine must ultimately depend on that medium just as the objects we identify as taking on an actuality do. — Hallucinogen
"By definition" refers to what something is, not what people conventionally think it is. E.g. Someone can say "true is by definition the opposite of false" but people merely disagreeing doesn't mean that this definition is not the case. — Hallucinogen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.