That's what my point was, which is why I was pointing out what the actual definition of reality is. — Hallucinogen

Definitions of words are established by humans based on a consensus of usage. There are good and bad definitions, but no true or false ones. Yours is a bad definition if for the only reason that no one else will know what you're talking about.

Nuff said.

Have you changed your thinking in any way about 'real' as a result of this thread?

I'm with Tom Storm on this. Your way of formatting, as opposed to using the quoting mechanism provided by the forum, often makes it hard to follow your posts which are, as he noted, interesting and useful. — T Clark

As I said, I am with him on that too! Its just a habit and have to work on that and it needs time, especially when there are people interested in what I have to share with them !

Definitions of words are established by humans based on a consensus of usage. There are good and bad definitions, but no true or false ones. — T Clark

You are contradicting yourself; claiming that there are no true or false definitions rests on objectively true definitions with which you make the claim.

Yours is a bad definition if for the only reason that no one else will know what you're talking about. — T Clark

My definition is objectively true, and you've got no reason to think other people won't know what I'm talking about when I offer a different definition of a word since we communicate in common definitions.

I admit I am lost about what Banno is saying. I don't think it is a red herring, i.e. a rhetorical device. Seems like he sees what Austin has to say as ontology, while I don't see it. He's talking about a different kind of "real" than I am. — T Clark

Its more of an element of distraction than misleading so I will agree its not a rhetorical device but still an logical error according to the following definition: "A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question."
I found myself trying to keep his feet on the fire(on the topic) while he keeps insisting in merging an irrelevant meaning of the term.

Have you changed your thinking in any way about 'real' as a result of this thread? — Tom Storm

What a good question. No fair. I don't think it so much changed my thinking as made it clearer what I actually think. It tested my ideas by making me use them in different contexts. I started out with a fairly limited claim - that what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. I think that's a metaphysical position, so I wasn't looking to see if it was right, but if it is useful. I gained confidence that it is.

That's how I use a lot of the discussions I start. It's like putting a canoe I just made in the water to see if it leaks. No, I don't make canoes. But I do make metaphors.

Sounds reasonable. It's been an interesting thread.

what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. — T Clark

Pretty sure I still subscribe to this version too.

I don't see how it's relevant to the aspect of "real" I set out to discuss. — T Clark

Well, that's disappointing. One more try, perhaps.

Let's look at "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". Austin's strategy is to ask about the use of the word "real" here, looking for an alternative phrasing that sets out what is being said - as explained previously.

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"... — Banno

So we parse "Quantum physics say nothing is real" as something like "According to quantum physics, it's not a real thing, it's a..."; and ask what we are to put here - fake, forgery, illusion...

We know what to put in the cases cited previously, but it is far from clear what we might put here. What this might show is that the words "real" and "unreal" have here become unmoored. They are here outside of a usable context.

What is offered by Austin is not a definition, but a method to test proposed uses. What we have is an antidote to the philosopher's tendency to push words beyond their applicability.

Perhaps seeing this requires a particular conception of philosophical problems as knots in our understanding, to be untied, explained, or showing how to leave the flytrap. but the fly has to want to leave....

There may perhaps be a sense not covered by this, a sense that is "absolute" in some way; but Austins method sets the challenge of setting out clearly what such a sense would be. But this:

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

does not provide such clarity. Nor do other posited definitions in this thread. Of course, it is a good idea to be clear about what are our elements and what structure we propose and to talk about what we can observe, but this does not constitute reality. Nick takes things a step too far.

So what Austin provides is a way to spot bullshit philosophy. You can take it or leave it.

On another point,

"That's not ontology" constitutes an argument if the subject of the discussion is ontology. — T Clark

"That's not ontology" is a statement, not an argument. To make it an argument you would need at the least an additional premise of two to demarcate ontology. If ontology is at least partly about what is real and what is not real, Austin's strategy is certainly a bit of ontology.

Austin's Paper is here.

The third article, page 44 and on. His style is droll; if you do not find it amusing skip to the bottom of p.54. Other similar arguments can be found in the index.

The key is, when you claim that something (everything) is not real, the onus is on you to clarify what it is you are suggesting.

It's an empirical method, really: given the suggestion that such-and-such is not real, it is worth asking "how can we check?"

So we parse "Quantum physics say nothing is real" as something like "According to quantum physics, it's not a real thing, it's a..."; and ask what we are to put here - fake, forgery, illusion...

We know what to put in the cases cited previously, but it is far from clear what we might put here. What this might show is that the words "real" and "unreal" have here become unmoored. They are here outside of a usable context. — Banno

That seems to be the key point for me here. The application of words where they fail us, where they no longer have utility. And Midgley's notion of 'plumbing' seems to take a similar approach to conceptual schemes which are pushed beyond their limits and create confusion.

Midgley attended Austin's sessions, but it has been suggested that he was somewhat misogynist, and a bit creepy. Midgley's plumbing metaphor builds on the general idea in Oxford and Cambridge in the 40's and 50's that doing philosophy well meant being clear as to the words one uses and how one uses them.

The limiting of "real" to the everyday looks promising until one considers more outlandish cases - is that a real moon of Saturn or a spacecraft? Is that a real statistical correlation or a mere anomaly? Is that a real philosophical objection or an expression of one's frustration?

Let's look at "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". Austin's strategy is to ask about the use of the word "real" here, looking for an alternative phrasing that sets out what is being said - as explained previously. — Banno

The words "existence," "being," and "reality," are valuable to me. I don't want to get rid of them. There is a world I live in everyday. It exists. It is. It's real. There are other ways of looking at things and I even find some of them helpful and interesting. I think I've shown that with my interest in the Tao Te Ching. But when you get to the bottom, when it's lunchtime, there is a world. I don't see that Lao Tzu would have any problem with that.

I don't see how anything I've written here counts against that. Certainly Austin would not have disagreed.

Do you suppose otherwise? Or are we in agreement?

Do you suppose otherwise? Or are we in agreement? — Banno

As I noted when you first brought this up earlier in the thread, I don't think it necessarily contradicts what I've written. It think it deals with a different set of issues related to real and reality.

Ok. So can you please explain to me what that difference is?

So can you please explain to me what that difference is? — Banno

No, I don't think I can. I think we're both in the same situation. Neither of us has shown we really understand the others position. Our arguments have sort of run in parallel without ever really crossing.

I think we're both in the same situation. — T Clark

I don't agree. I think I have shown you how to turn the intuition expressed in the OP into something substantial, but that you haven't quite seen it. Please, have a read of the article.

I don't agree. I think I have shown you how to turn the intuition expressed in the OP into something substantial, but that you haven't quite seen it. Please, have a read of the article. — Banno

It is not unusual that you and I don't see eye to eye on this type of issue. I don't see how your or Austin's formulations contribute to my understanding. Let's leave it at that.

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz:
— @Tom Storm

I don't know how to explain that. — Agent Smith

Just noticed this while replying to TClark.

I find Sherlock Holmes vaguely annoying. Holmes relies on confirmation bias. He reinforces what he surmises with further conjecture, seeking to fortify them rather than refute them.

He only gets away with it because he is a fiction.

I surmise that Doyle worked along similar lines, seeking to bolster his belief in fairies at the bottom of his garden rather than disprove it.

So the answer is that neither Holmes nor Doyle were so "ruthlessly rational".

(Edit: Once you start to seeing confirmation bias in detective fiction, you will no longer be able to enjoy them. Sorry. )

Could be. I read two Holmes stories about 35 years ago. I guess I was referring to the perception of the character who Stephen Fry once described as a master of abduction...

Have you changed your thinking in any way about 'real' as a result of this thread?
— Tom Storm

What a good question. No fair. I don't think it so much changed my thinking as made it clearer what I actually think. It tested my ideas by making me use them in different contexts. I started out with a fairly limited claim - that what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. I think that's a metaphysical position, so I wasn't looking to see if it was right, but if it is useful. I gained confidence that it is.

That's how I use a lot of the discussions I start. It's like putting a canoe I just made in the water to see if it leaks. No, I don't make canoes. But I do make metaphors. — T Clark

Tom's question cuts to the chase.
Much better than my previous question as to where the thread was leading.

I doubt that TC's mind is that amenable to change, even if it might look that way. He takes a firm stance.
The canoe cannot and will not sink.

It is not unusual that you and I don't see eye to eye on this type of issue. I don't see how your or Austin's formulations contribute to my understanding. Let's leave it at that. — T Clark

In general, it seems previous 'hostile' exchanges serve to trigger some kind of mental block.
Stubbornness sets in.

As I noted when you first brought this up earlier in the thread, I don't think it necessarily contradicts what I've written. It think it deals with a different set of issues related to real and reality. — T Clark

The title: 'What does 'real' mean?' is broad; the OP offered different definitions.
No wonder different sets of issues were raised; all worthwhile and relevant even if summarily dismissed.

But, again, what of it? The testing of own ideas in discussion is fine but sometimes it is really about confirming what you already feel you 'know'.
The reality of what happens in so many threads...is that posters don't change their position.
Even if others offer alternative views, dogmatism can persist even as people think they are open.
Ears are closed to real listening.

C'est la vie.

Addendum to

The only context which I took as relevant is the one mentioned in the OP: (mis)usage vis-a-vis onrology on TPF. All the "ordinary language semantics" blather these last several pages seems to me besides the point raised in the OP.

I think it's best to lay our cards on the table showing how we intend to use problematic (i.e. specialized) terms in order to make ourselves better understood. This I try to do (though, admiittedly, not always effectively). Again, in case this was missed ...

So I use "real" to indicate some X is ineluctable, subject-invariant and/or which exceeds-our-categories. — 180 Proof

Context: ontology (and related, more specific topics e.g. facticity, alterity, agency, etc). Interlocators are free to accept or reject, supplement or replace my usage with a less defective alternative; maybe, then, I/we might learn something else about or gain more clarity on the topic at hand.

Anyway, stipulative, or working, definitions, I think, suffice for non-fallacious (non-equivocating) philosophical discussions. It seems, more or less, you agree, TC?

I think it's best to lay our cards on the table showing how we intend to use problematic (i.e. specialized) terms in order to make ourselves better understood. — 180 Proof

Indeed. This would have been a good start. Instead of which a host of definitions were laid out:

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 — T Clark

Then it was narrowed down to:

I’ll define “reality” as the state of being real. — T Clark

How helpful was this? The state of being human and real includes language use. So, I object to:

All the "ordinary language semantics" blather these last several pages seems to me besides the point raised in the OP. — 180 Proof

What was the point raised in the OP?

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

How is talking about ordinary human language not relevant to discussing the idea of 'real'?
What am I missing?

Again, Tom seems to state more clearly my question:

That seems to be the key point for me here. The application of words where they fail us, where they no longer have utility. And Midgley's notion of 'plumbing' seems to take a similar approach to conceptual schemes which are pushed beyond their limits and create confusion — Tom Storm

So I use "real" to indicate some X is ineluctable, subject-invariant and/or which exceeds-our-categories. — 180 Proof

What does that mean?

It has struck me the concept is not usually defined explicitly or carefully. To me the way it is used often seems wrong-headed — T Clark

This seems to me the idea raised by the OP.

How is talking about ordinary human language not relevant to discussing the idea of 'real'?
What am I missing? — Amity

I don't think"the idea of real" is relevant but rather that the term itself "is not usually defined explicitly or carefully" – and I'd add – in the context of discussions on ontology here on TPF. Talking about "ordinary language" here is like discussing playwriting craft in a review of the latest performance of Hamlet – interesting, maybe, but besides the point as far as I'm concerned.

What does that mean? — Amity

Here's some "ordinary language semantics" for you: follow the links in the post to which your quote of mine refers for the context (i.e. how I use "real" when discussing ontology).

What does that mean?
— Amity
Here's some "ordinary language semantics" for you: follow the links in the post to which your quote of mine refers for the context (i.e. how I use "real" when discussing ontology). — 180 Proof

OK. You don't need to be smart-arse-ish. The links took me to another thread on the subject of 'reality' and your responses, italicised below:
'What is your understanding of 'reality' ?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/554443

Okay, how many ways can we define reality?
— Athena
As many ways as we can possibly map the territory or as many different games of chess we can possibly play. Maybe as many as the number of angels which can dance on a pinhead. 'Definitions' are like that mostly.

What about reality matters and why?
This question, like asking every other, presupposes it. 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).

How can we be sure we know reality?
As Witty might say 'because we lack sufficient grounds to doubt reality' (as opposed to abundant grounds to doubt fictions).

Like, might we live differently if we think the Jews must rebuild their temple for Jesus to return and then we will be given a new planet, or if we think our planet is finite and that no religious explanations explain our reality?

Again: reality is the ineluctable, subject / consensus–invariant, measure that tests whether "what we think" and "how we live accordingly" are maladaptive (more harmful than helpful) or adaptive (more helpful than harmful), etc.

[my bolds]

How does this 'measure' test how we think and how we live other than via words related to observation? That is the reality in which we live.

Talking about 'blathers' that discussion lasted for 13 pages, ending with another point of view:

I think reality is a form of participatory realism. We exist to manifest and give meaning to the universe's collective dream that requires consistency because it is shared. Detailed proof to follow or not. — Cheshire

I preferred the simple, straightforward:

Reality is that which does not require "faith" and is the case regardless of what we believe. — 180 Proof

Nice talking with ya', really.
Later...

Real is what you believe to be real.

Real is what you believe to be real. — A Realist

But Jack Torrance thinks the bartender is real.

Then he's real.

Then he's real. — A Realist

He's not, though.