I've no idea. — Banno
May your offspring floruit like, as they say, nobody's business! — Agent Smith
It just dawned on me that I haven't the foggiest about what's going on. Is this the way it's supposed to be? — Agent Smith
Why not? But enough already!
GOTO the Lounge. It's where it's at :cool: — Amity
Arrêter! Bugger off to Deep Songs. This post will now self-destruct — Amity
Most interesting. — Ms. Marple
-Yes, I have interacted with people who make that claim. I think its an ambiguity issue. In my opinion they should identify the differences between a Real physical apple and an mental representation of a "real" apple. By identifying their properties we wil be able to justify or not the use of the term real for both cases. — Nickolasgaspar
All boils down to the meaning of the concept of "real" and how useful our usage is to avoid fallacies of ambiguity. — Nickolasgaspar
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
There's your answer.Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real". — Banno
One does not define a common usage, one observes it. If one begins by defining one's terms, one is in danger of not addressing the common usage. Indeed, that is what you have done here, with "real", by limiting your sample....people don't bother to define which common usage of the word they use... — Nickolasgaspar
- In any dictionary almost every word has more than one definition ! As you pointed out , the world "real" can be used to address "Genuineness" too (not just state of existence/non existence).One does not define a common usage, one observes it — Banno
Yes, I agree. Real has lots of different meanings or shades of meaning. For what it's worth, it was not my intention to exclude imaginary or conceptual phenomena from this discussion. On the other hand, I think "Is that tree real" is a different question than "Is that a real tree." Seems to me the first causes more philosophical agita. — T Clark
↪Nickolasgaspar is considering only a restricted use of "real". This definition does not serve to sort a fake masterpiece from real Picaso, a counterfeit from a real bank note. These might be physically indistinguishable. — Banno
Since this is a philosophical forum I am only considering the use relevant to philosophy (ontology). Fine art art appraisal or Verification Of Genuineness do not challenge the ontology (existence) of a painting and they are technical not philosophical fields of evaluation. — Nickolasgaspar
) 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
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.