As I noted previously, I find this affectation annoying. — T Clark

Apolpgies.

I've no idea. — Banno

:smile:
I knew you were clueless! :roll:
What kind of an idea don't you have?

I have an idea.
Let's start a YWHNIC.
'Yes, We Have No Idea/s Club'.
You can be the Founding Father and I can be Mummy :scream: :hearts: :monkey:
Our first offspring must be a song and dance.
Lyrics to the tune of YWHNB: ( they keep changing the words anyway, let's have a philo version)
Allons-y!

Good call!

May your offspring floruit like, as they say, nobody's business!

May your offspring floruit like, as they say, nobody's business! — Agent Smith

Well, you can join in too. With your flair for language, you can take the first verse :cool:
'Floruit' - I thought you were flourishing your français but non, it derives from Latin.
Good call, as they say.
Mind and take care...of your bananas ideas... :nerd:

Danke! 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? :chin:

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

Never mind reality. Sing 'Is that all there is?' by Peggy Lee.

Never mind reality. Sing 'Is that all there is?' by Peggy Lee. — Amity

Why? :snicker:

Why not? But enough already!
GOTO the Lounge. It's where it's at :cool:

Why not? But enough already!
GOTO the Lounge. It's where it's at :cool: — Amity

:cool: Why not? Well, I can think of a number of reasons not to sing e.g. if I'm hiding from a lion.

Arrêter! Bugger off to Deep Songs. This post will now self-destruct :fire:

Arrêter! Bugger off to Deep Songs. This post will now self-destruct — Amity

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

Keep it comin'!

-" I think this definition is a good one. It gets at some of the confusion about the reality of quantum events. What's real is what's "registered by our observations."
- I share the same opinion. After all what is real or not, what is true or not, what is knowledge or not, etc are our personal evaluations limited by our our empirical nature and our current methods/technology of investigation. So I find reasonable to avoid absolute or ultimate claims on aspects of the world that we a. don't have access and b. can't verify if those aspects even exist.

-"This makes sense, although I'm not sure it answers all the questions. I think for some, it is not only the mental state that is real, the imagined apple is too."
-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.

-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

I don't really have an opinion on whether or not an imagined apple should be considered real or not. What's important for me is the recognition that the further you get from things we can see with out eyes or hold in our hands, the more tenuous the connection to "reality" is.

IF we agree that existence has physical qualities,things that are real should share those qualities. An imagined apple , by definition, is not an existing entity in our reality. The mental state responsible for this concept is what's real, the produced concept is not, its how our brain interprets that specific state and produces an image. Sure its a stimuli that can affect our biochemisty and behavior (make us hungry and motive us to grab one and eat it), but its contingent to our brain state without attributes on its own . A real apple is not just an image, its has nutrients and physical qualities while an imagined apple is just a chemically stored image of a previous visual experience.

Its a logical fallacy to equate the ontology of two different things (Map/Territory).
We can't go anywhere by walking on a map,like we can not satisfy our appetite or receive nutrients by eating a mental impression of an apple.
All boils down to the meaning of the concept of "real" and how useful our usage is to avoid fallacies of ambiguity.

All boils down to the meaning of the concept of "real" and how useful our usage is to avoid fallacies of ambiguity. — Nickolasgaspar

Agree. After almost 200 posts . . . :roll:

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

, 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.

All that says is that what real means is how we use it. Hardly something which which one would disagree.

Again,

Austin, especially in Other Minds, addresses "real". — Banno

There's your answer.

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.

most philosophical discussions go on forever either because people don't bother to define which common usage of the word they use, or they commit an argument from Ambiguity fallacy by jumping from one definition to another.
I think we are in a good path with the people I interacted so far!

Philosophy includes aesthetics.

But further, if you would provide an account of some concept, best to provide an account of all its uses. That way you will avoid the danger of misapplying a limited account to a general case.

...people don't bother to define which common usage of the word they use... — Nickolasgaspar

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.

Sure, but I am pretty sure that T Clark was addressing the ontological aspect of the word, not the aesthetical aspect of it. (Maybe I am wrong)
.

One does not define a common usage, one observes it — Banno

- 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).
So in order to avoid talking past each other we all need to inform our interlocutors on the meaning of the word we are using.

-"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. "
-No, no , no. Its essential to limit your sample (of common usages) or else you are in danger of having a vague conversation about anything....not a specific something.
We define the term by pointing TO the "common usage" we use. ITs impossible to ignore it since its our starting point.
i.e. your definition of "real" (being genuine) doesn't challenge the existence of a "mental apple" but another quality (of genuineness) we project on physical objects that we don't question their existence. By defining the ontological aspect of the term, I remove this specific common usage from the conversation.

Universal definitions that apply to an infinite number of cases are not extensionally exhaustive descriptions of anything, in spite of appearances to the contrary. A universal definition that quantifies over an infinite domain is an intensional and prescriptive definition, i.e. a speech act, that is given in relation to an indeterminate number of future observations, as in "Put all dirty socks onto this pile".

Therefore any proposed universal definitions of "reality", "truth", "existence", "equality" etc can only be prescriptive rules of language for standardising the public expression of individual judgements that are made on a case by case basis. Such universal definitions don't describe their future applications before the respective future judgements are made, and the outcomes of said judgements aren't dictated by the a priori universal definitions - only the expression of such judgements can be said to be determined a priori by the universal definitions.

Neither Austin nor I defining real as genuine.

Rather, the context serves to restrict the use of the term. What Austin noticed is that "real", and various other terms of philosophical interest, is defined negatively, by contrasting it to what is not real. It's a real painting, not a fake; a real bank note, not a forgery.

He's not setting out a definition but describing a use.

That's how to deal with language effectively, in contrast to mere stipulation.

Ι am not sure we are compatible as interlocutors.
You wrote "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."

T Clark OP was about "real" or "reality" so I guess he intended to address the ontology of what is real....not the genuineness of a "masterpiece".
He even listed a list of definitions of "real" addressing different aspect of Ontology.
I quote.
" Having objective independent existence
Having existence independent of mind
Occurring or existing in actuality
Existing in fact and not imaginary
Of or relating to practical or everyday concerns or activities"

I never addressed Austin's posts.
If Austin's addresses other meanings of the term outside of Ontology, then he is out of topic.

-"That's how to deal with language effectively, in contrast to mere stipulation"
- Introducing usages having nothing to do with the specific branch of Philosophy is not an effective use of language...far from it. Again this thread is about Ontology, not language.

Btw
-''Neither Austin nor I defining real as genuine."
- I never accused you for doing so. I just pointed out that your remark was out of topic. Whether the definition we examine is this thread doesn't serve to sort fakes from masterpieces is irrelevant.

T can speak for himself, but he introduced the list of definitions only to immediately dismiss it, and I will bold the following:

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

Austin is addressing ontology. The stuff I cited comes from one of his articles on the ontology of other minds.

And there are other problems with your definition. I was merely surprised that found it satisfactory.

↪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

@Nickolasgaspar is right that my purpose in starting this discussion was to examine "real" and "reality" from an ontological perspective. On the other hand, several people have looked at other possible meanings of the word. This late in the game I have no objection letting the discussion go where it wills.

Τhat's irrelevant and philosophically null. Listing all the different meanings of a word is just meaningless and the subject of an other discipline.

-" "Is that tree real" is a different question than "Is that a real tree." Seems to me the first causes more philosophical agita."
-The first is a philosophical/scientific question while the second is a purely scientific question.
I don't really know why you insist wasting time on an irrelevant topic(2nd question) when we can discuss the standards and criteria by which we can identify real entities in our world.

-"Austin is addressing ontology. The stuff I cited comes from one of his articles on the ontology of other minds."
-Its not fundamental, It comes way after the essential question "what exists" and its irrelevant to T CLark's OP. We could address that question on i.e. what distinguishes a real apple from a wax replica or a plastic one or a painted one or a pear that looks like an apple, or a red Christmas ball, or an apple that tastes like a banana....etc etc etc. I don't know why one would ever be interested in a discussion like this, but we could try it.

-"And there are other problems with your definition. I was merely surprised that ↪jgill
found it satisfactory. "
-My definition is scientific, so it can only appear "problematic" to specific ideologies, not to a pure Philosophical inquiry based on our current Epistemology on how we define and identify existence.

Hard to follow your posts. Why not highlight the sentences you wish to quote? The word "Quote" appears and you click on that word. The quote will appear in your text. Then we can all see where the quote ends and you begin. :wink:

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). What is there to gain when our conclusion on i.e. what makes a real apple will not apply to any other entity of this world. How the "gained knowledge'' of such study can add to our our wisdom?

The power of Science and Philosophy is their ability to produce Law like Generalizations and Theoretical Frameworks descriptive of processes found in this world. Classifying entities(real from fake) is also a great tool for our Philosophy, but its a Scientific tool that enables us to philosophize. In any case its not the goal of philosophy.
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.

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