4. Fairies are not real — Agent Smith
Having objective independent existence — T Clark
The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin
Even within philosophical discussions, I think "real" is generally just a term to describe the inner world of the person speaking. It's a projection of a personal predisposition unto a public conversation about private experience. This perhaps goes back to my critique of your interpretation of the Tao Te Ching. — Noble Dust
Would you not then say that elections and other particles are not real since they do not concern our day to day lives? — invizzy
Are you saying there is no external world outside human experience? — T Clark
In discussions of the Tao Te Ching, I remember you commenting that any interpretation by a modern westerner would not be credible. — T Clark
Contra Clark, the imaginary is "real" — Bitter Crank
Example - an apple is real. A memory of an apple, an imagined apple, or the taste of an apple may or may not be real. — T Clark
The expansive physical properties of the world which make up the 'solid ground of our being' are real. Our "reality" is tested on those properties. "Testing" has, over time, reduced the scope of the "imaginary world" of spirits. — Bitter Crank
Sherlock Holmes and the old fashioned Celtic 'fairies' are not real because (per Clark #2) they have no existence independent of mind. Zeus, Brahma, Allah, God, Beowulf, Hogwarts, et al are hatchlings of the imagination. They are not real -- they have no existence apart from mind. — Bitter Crank
Not quite? I don't like the binary question. I think individual human experience determines our perception of what we think is "reality"; why else would we all disagree so much and with so much brash confidence? Our personal algebra leads us to beliefs about reality that solidify over time to the point of being nearly unmovable. Whether these ossified perspectives have anything to do with some "objective" external world would, then, logically, be something we couldn't know about. Theoretically. Based on this given framework. So, within this view, how can I move to the point at which I have knowledge about some sort of external objectivity? — Noble Dust
I don't think I said that; just that a modern westerner, when reading it, is trying to interpret an ancient esoteric text, translated from an ancient and obsolete language, the content of which is arcane and mysterious to ears hearing it thousands of years later through an unknown amount of filters that have distilled it to what you're reading in the English in the year 2022. — Noble Dust
The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin
I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark
To understand what "real" is doing here we ask what it is to be contrasted with, and what other term might replace "not real". Use pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y" - "it's not a real world, its... what? imagined? fake? counterfeit? Nothing seems to fit. So we can pass such an unfounded musing by. Language on holiday.I think "real" is generally just a term to describe the inner world of the person speaking. — Noble Dust
I have no problem with what you've written. I've made the case many times that the idea of objective reality is a convenience that allows us to talk about the world we live in. — T Clark
I don't see it as an insurmountable obstacle. — T Clark
instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real' — Austin
My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. — T Clark
3. Monsieur Sherlock Holmes is not real
4. Fairies are not real — Agent Smith
This "idea" is pragmatic, or existential.My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, hunting. — T Clark
Reality is ineluctable and, therefore, discourse/cognition–invariant. Thus, it's the ur-standard, or fundamental ruler, against which all ideas and concepts, knowledge and lives are measured (i.e. enabled-constrained, tested). — 180 Proof
What isreality?
— Eremit
The encompassing of reason that necessarily cannot itself be encompassed by reasoning, — 180 Proof
The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it consists in whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all (of our) rational categories and techniques of control (e.g. ambiguity, transfinitude, contingency, uncertainty, randomness). The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like 'the void within & by which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). — 180 Proof
Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof
The idea of “real” or “reality” comes up frequently on the forum, often in relation to quantum mechanics. It has struck me the concept is not usually defined explicitly or carefully. — T Clark
One of the reasons I came up with the criteria for reality I did was that in several discussions posters claimed that quantum behavior at atomic and subatomic scale called into question the reality of phenomena at human scale. I reject that idea. — T Clark
Curiously Sherlock Holmes creator, AC Doyle, did believe in fairies in a rather notorious episode of credulity. The Cottingley Fairies hoax of 1917 — Tom Storm
My position - I don’t think the idea of “real” has any meaning except in relation to the everyday world at human scale. Reality only makes sense in comparison to what humans see, hear, feel, taste, and smell in their homes, at work, — T Clark
Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof
His novel, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon involves a questioning of what it is to be human and of what reality is. The story also has a theme of guilt, as the memories of the passenger are spoiled by the guilt he retains about his past actions. — wiki
[ my bolds]Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real".
But is it a real one? When you ask if it is real, what are you sugesting? No, it's a fake; it's an illusion; it's a forgery; it's a phoney, a counterfeit, a mirage... What is real and what isn't is decided in each case by contrast; there is no single criteria.
'The wile of the metaphysician consists in asking 'Is it a real table?' (a kind of object which has no obvious way of being phoney) and not specifying or limiting what may be wrong with it, so that I feel at a loss 'how to prove' it is a real one.' It is the use of the word 'real' in this manner that leads us on to the supposition that 'real' has a single meaning ('the real world' 'material objects'), and that a highly profound and puzzling one. Instead, we should insist always on specifying with what 'real' is being contrasted - not what I shall have to show it is, in order to show it is 'real': and then usually we shall find some specific, less fatal, word, appropriate to the particular case, to substitute for 'real'
— Austin — Banno
Actually being or existing
Officially recognized as possessing certain qualifications or meeting certain standards
Free from any intent to deceive or impress
Rightly so called
Important or serious in nature
Absolute in nature
(informal) Honest in a blunt manner
(informal) To be under no illusion, or to be serious about a matter
Not romantic
Essential, innate or inherent to something
Characterized by the lack of artificial additives or preservative treatment
Used to emphasize the extent of something unpleasant or bad
Of, or concerned with, the actual doing or use of something, rather than with theory and ideas
Denotes a humble and unpretentious attitude towards life
In bodily form
Legally, officially or formally in effect
Having all its feathers
Most intimate or private
Still in existence — wordhippo
Having objective independent existence — T Clark
Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz: — Tom Storm
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.