• Ilya B Shambat
    194
    When I was 15, I was going around telling people in school that nothing was real. Some people thought that I was on drugs; others, that I wanted attention; and others still, that I was escaping reality. I was in fact doing none of the above. I was working with the definition of reality that I had been given. According to the empiricist definition of reality, something is real if it can be proven. Since nothing can be proven to a man with brain damage or to a man who refuses to listen to evidence, it follows from that definition that nothing is real. Define something falsely, expect the whole thing to go haywire.

    Another definition of reality I got was “something that does not go away when you stop believing in it.” This is also not always correct. I have heard it from many people that people's beliefs have a great role in shaping the reality of their lives, and I agree with that, although in no way do I agree with the New Agers who think that they are the only thing that shapes their reality. A statement made by an American industrialist is, “Either you believe that you can, or you believe that you cannot. In either case, you are right.” Beliefs that people have do have a great role in shaping reality – both of their lives and of the world as they impact upon it. You may not believe in misogynistic or racist attitudes; but they've had vast impact upon reality, and they continue to do so now even though many people believe that these attitudes are wrong.

    Reality is not something that can, or should be, defined in reference to a method. A method is there to discern reality, and not the other way around. This is the case with logic; this is the case with faith; this is the case with just about everything. Reality does not exist because you can either observe it or believe in it. It existed before you; it will continue existing long after you're gone.

    The problem in both cases has been mistaking the horse and the cart. The cart does not drive the horse; the horse drives the cart. Reality exists whether or not you either can prove it or believe in it; and defining it in reference to either such thing is wrong.

    The problem is not with reality. The problem is with wrongful definitions of what reality is. A wrong definition will always beget wrong conclusions; and we see the same both with nihilists who use the logical implications of the empiricist view to say that nothing is real and the New Agers who think that everyone makes their reality with their consciousness or their beliefs.

    More nonsense to that effect has come from the academics who think that reality is something that is construed by people agreeing upon it. Once again, that is completely wrong. People agreeing upon an issue has not created the solar system. Their beliefs shape their actions and communications, which then impact upon the rest of the world. It does not mean that they have created reality, or that reality is something that is construed.

    Another bit of nonsense that I have heard is that truth is relative. No, it is not. There is nothing relative about the sun. Relativism is the ideology of a conman; what a friend from India rightfully called scumbaggery. Truth is complex; reality is complex; but neither are relative.

    Probably the best view I've had on this matter is that reality is co-created. There is the Sun, the Earth, and the rest of the universe that we did not create, and then there is the human world which we did. Both are part of reality, and both are expected to continue to remain a part of reality for a long time. There is what we have been given, and there is what we do with it. Both are equally real.

    This parses with the quantum mechanics, in which observing the phenomenon changes it - and we, through our actions, impact the world. We most certainly have influence on reality. Once again, both the man-made and non-made reality is real. What is reality? Reality is what is. We can then – measure it, study it, observe it, and of course contribute to it as well.

    Do not define something in reference to a method that is being used to study it. Define something according to what it is. Both logic and beliefs that people have a vast role in influencing the reality of their actions and of the world as they impact upon it. That does not mean that they have created reality. And it does not mean that reality is something that should be defined in reference to either method.
  • wax
    301
    it seems like or contact with reality is what we experience. And experience is an awareness generated by the processes of perception. What ever those processes of perception are, we can't ever really be sure, as we would have to investigate using our perception via observation.

    And as I can't be sure how anyone would interpret my argument, I suppose this is a definition of reality for me...
  • Mww
    4.9k


    That’s always been the problem, hasn’t it? No matter how we go about trying to explain things, we have nothing with which to compare our results. As you say, we are forced to use ourselves to understand how ourselves understand things.

    We even create our own regulatory devices, re: the logical laws of thought on the one hand and the physical laws of Nature on the other, in an attempt to guide ourselves from what we think contradicting what we observe. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.

    Nature of the cognitive beast, I say.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    According to the empiricist definition of reality, something is real if it can be proven.Ilya B Shambat

    Where did you get that idea from? I'm pretty sure no philosopher has ever suggested that the criterion for something being real is that one can prove it. And re this, "Since nothing can be proven to a man with brain damage or to a man who refuses to listen to evidence," there's no doubt that no philosopher has ever suggested that the criterion for something being real is that it has been proved in the opinion of every single living person, no matter their condition otherwise.

    Another bit of nonsense that I have heard is that truth is relative.Ilya B Shambat

    My view is that truth is relative, but that has to do with the "technical" way that truth is conventionally treated in analytic philosophy. It's a long thing to explain, but basically, you're equating truth with what we call facts, where there's a distinction, and where facts occur independently of us. (We don't use "fact" as a name for a "true statement.")

    That's not to suggest that my view of truth is a conventional view in analytic philosophy. But my view of truth grows out of the way that analytic philosophy conventionally approaches what truth is.

    "Real" has most often been used for (where these are various common usages that aren't necessarily compatible with each other--there are different populations and historical periods that have used these):

    (1) Things that exist or "obtain" or occur (or whatever word you'd want to use) period,

    (2) The same as (1) above, but with an (sometimes exclusive) emphasis on things that are unchanging--typically a la platonic forms/"ideas", basically abstracts that are in the vein of the "model" for other things

    (3) Things that exist independently of us, particularly things that exist mind-independently.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    We don't use "fact" as a name for a "true statement.")Terrapin Station

    We do in fact. The encyclopedia is widely considered to be a compendium of facts, that is of true statements. So, 'fact' is an equivocal term which can refer to either true statements (semantic facts) or states of affairs (ostensive facts).
  • SophistiCat
    2.2k
    This parses with the quantum mechanics, in which observing the phenomenon changes it - and we, through our actions, impact the world. We most certainly have influence on reality. Once again, both the man-made and non-made reality is real. What is reality? Reality is what is. We can then – measure it, study it, observe it, and of course contribute to it as well.Ilya B Shambat

    You don't need to appeal to quantum mechanics in order to conclude that we "have influence on reality." If you are an agent, then you are influencing reality - that is what it means to be an agent!

    Anyway, there is a sense in which what we believe about a subject is what makes the subject what it is. Does, for example, logic exist - is it a part of reality? Ultimately, the answer depends on how we want to define reality in the particular context. There is no fact of the matter here, other than the fact of how we construct meaning. We can construct the meaning of the word reality so that it includes things like logic - or not: it is completely up to us.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    We do in fact. The encyclopedia is widely considered to be a compendium of facts, that is of true statements. So, 'fact' is an equivocal term which can refer to either true statements (semantic facts) or states of affairs (ostensive facts).Janus

    I was explaining with respect to analytic philosophy.
  • Janus
    16.3k


    So you believe the different senses of 'fact' have never been acknowledged by any analytic philosophers, not even the 'ordinary language' philosophers? In any case, even if it hadn't, I can't see why it would be relevant to the present discussion.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    So you believe the different senses of 'fact' have never been acknowledged by any analytic philosophers,Janus

    Obviously they're aware of other uses. But the term isn't used that way in an analytic philosophy context, and there are reasons it's not used that way (reasons that were made explicit in texts like Russell's Philosophy of Logical Atomism)

    What it was relevant to was my explanation of why I'm a relativist on truth. That's rooted in the way that analytic philosophy conventionally parses what truth is (namely--it's a property of propositions).
  • Janus
    16.3k
    Well, please cite or quote the text, then. And explain what relevance truth being a property of propositions has to your relativist stance regarding truth. Do you believe the great majority of "analytic philosophers" were truth relativists? Sounds more like the kinds of accusations that analytic philosophers have leveled against Postmodern thinkers. What could it even mean to be a relativist in regard to truth, when the very idea of truth consists in it being distinct from mere opinion?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Well, please cite or quote the text, then.Janus

    I'd have to search for it, and I'm not about to reread the whole book just to give you a citation for whatever ridiculous reason you'd be asking for one.

    Propositions are conventionally the meanings of statements (rather than the particular expression of them). And the truth value property is conventionally a relation between propositions and something else. (I'm not specifying the something else because that then depends on the specfici truth theory, whether we're talking about correpondence, coherence, or whatever)

    On my view, meaning is a mental phenomenon. Related to this, the only way that these meanings have any ("checkable") relation to something other than themselves is via making a judgment (not in the value judgment (good/bad/etc.) sense, but in the "considered decision" sense) about how the meaning "hooks up" with something else. Again, this is something that only happens as a mental phenomenon.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    I'd have to search for it, and I'm not about to reread the whole book just to give you a citation for whatever ridiculous reason you'd be asking for one.Terrapin Station

    If you can't at least paraphrase it from memory then your claim is completely empty. Why is it ridiculous to ask for textual support for a reference that you have introduced?

    The rest of your explanation doesn't tell me anything that isn't pretty much common knowledge. If judgements were merely subjective then this rules out any relation between truth and "something else".

    Again, this is something that only happens as a mental phenomenon.Terrapin Station

    Is this a fact or is it merely your subjective opinion?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If you can't at least paraphrase it from memory then your claim is completely empty. Why is it ridiculous to ask for textual support for a reference that you have introduced?Janus

    Is it because you're expressing skepticism about it or something? I don't care if you don't believe it. I'm not going to reread the book to find a reference in the hope that you'll believe it if I find it and give you the citation. Nothing hinges on whether you believe it. If you want to be skeptical about it, that's fine.

    The rest of your explanation doesn't tell me anything that isn't pretty much common knowledge.Janus

    If my personal view is common knowledge, so much better for common knowledge, although it's curious why you had to ask for an explanation in that case.

    Is this a fact or is it merely your subjective opinion?Janus

    Fact. It's what the world is like ontologically.
  • Janus
    16.3k
    Fact. It's what the world is like ontologically.Terrapin Station

    So, truth is not merely subjective or relative, then...

    Nothing hinges on whether you believe it.Terrapin Station

    I just don't believe you, Terrapin!
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    So, truth is not merely subjective or relative, then..Janus

    Didn't I just explain that I use "truth" and "fact" differently, a la the conventional distinction in analytic phil, and then you said it was common knowledge, etc.? Whether something is a fact doesn't tell you anything about the ontological status of truth per this view.

    Take notes maybe.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Also, "fact" doesn't imply "not relative" by the way. (It also doesn't imply "not subjective," as there are facts about minds.) "Fact" does imply "not opinion" in the evaluative/good-bad sense of "opinion."
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.