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. — Banno

Are you implying that I'm the most ruthlessly rational figure on the forum?

How do you know?

Tom's question cuts to the chase. — Amity

If you don't analyze my motivations, I won't analyze yours.

How do you know? — A Realist

Because there's no way he could be there. They're on top of a mountain in a Colorado winter snow storm.

Jack is hallucinating.

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. — T Clark

.....I'm the most ruthlessly rational figure on the forum? — T Clark

The first goes a long way in supporting the second, I’ll wager.

So he's not real, because he doesn't believe the bartender is real.

So he's not real, because he doesn't believe the bartender is real. — A Realist

Jack does believe the bartender is real. He has an extended conversation with someone who isn't there. Happens all the time. :grin:

Does Jack think the bartender is real or not?
You are contradicting yourself.

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. — 180 Proof

Sure, but it's clear @Banno sees his responses as relevant, so I have no objection to his bringing them up, I just don't understand how they are.

Anyway, stipulative, or working, definitions, I think, suffice for non-fallacious (non-equivocating) philosophical discussions. It seems, more or less, you agree, TC? — 180 Proof

I do agree, but, as I noted, I think Banno sees his definition as ontological, which makes me think I don't get his point.

Like our conversation.

Reality is habitual hallucination, whatever that means... :-)

The first goes a long way in supporting the second, I’ll wager. — Mww

Well, my post was intended as tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Banno sees me as particularly rational. As for me, I can be rational, but I'm often not, although I don't think I'm ever irrational.

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts.

‘Tis a veritable playground here, aye.

Seriously. Ever had an itch?

Ever had an itch? — Mww

??? Ever been bit by a dead bee?

Bees don’t bite.

Just wondering whether the itch you had...assuming you admit to it....was real. And if it was, would it at the same time, be a member of reality in the way a statue or a ‘57 DeSoto, is.

Just wondering whether the itch you had...assuming you admit to it....was real. And if it was, would it at the same time, be a member of reality in the way a statue or a ‘57 DeSoto, is. — Mww

I haven't really taken a position on which specific phenomena I consider real and which I don't except for apples. I guess I tend to think of reality in material terms, but that doesn't mean I reject the reality of things like itches.

If you don't analyze my motivations, I won't analyze yours. — T Clark

No deal. The driving force behind anyone's OP is always of interest to me.

No deal. The driving force behind anyone's OP is always of interest to me. — Amity

As I noted previously:

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts. — T Clark

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts. — T Clark

Really?! Are you sure that is the real reason you dismiss my questions and describe them so?

'As I noted previously...' - a standard repetitive response that would seem to serve you well.
I'll leave it here.

I guess I tend to think of reality in material terms, but that doesn't mean I reject the reality of things like itches. — T Clark

Very well. But then, do you not have to resolve the logical dilemma of material things connected with a immediate and necessary causality, but itches, and the like, that are not? Seems the more consistent to reject as material reality that which has no connection to a causality, while acknowledging its being real, insofar as if it wasn’t real, with respect to the case at hand......where would you know to scratch?

Most fun I’ve had with a thread in ages, so, thanks for that.

Very well. But then, do you not have to resolve the logical dilemma of material things connected with a immediate and necessary causality, but itches, and the like, that are not? Seems the more consistent to reject as material reality that which has no connection to a causality, while acknowledging its being real, insofar as if it wasn’t real, with respect to the case at hand......where would you know to scratch? — Mww

If you twist my arm, I will say yes, itches are real. It's just that when I talk about reality I'm usually thinking about material things. That was the main theme of this discussion for me - we can argue about what is and what isn't real, but at the very least physical things, including apples, have to be considered real or the word "real" doesn't mean anything.

Most fun I’ve had with a thread in ages, so, thanks for that. — Mww

Thanks and you're welcome. I've really enjoyed it too.

Agreed.

Hence, the non-reciprocity I brought up way back. Reality is the real, but the real is not necessarily reality.

Carry on, then?

If you twist my arm, I will say yes, itches are real. It's just that when I talk about reality I'm usually thinking about material things. That was the main theme of this discussion for me - we can argue about what is and what isn't real, but at the very least physical things, including apples, have to be considered real or the word "real" doesn't mean anything. — T Clark

I was thinking more about my previous response to you. I wasn't really satisfied that I had said what I meant. I think the bolded text in this response I made to a comment from @Mww is the best summary of my thoughts I've written.

If one analyzes the concepts of "real" and "reality" from a strictly subjective/human point of view, I think one of the most natural conclusions is that what is not real can be subject to transformations carried exclusively by the mind. For example, an imaginary apple can be imagined as a small apple, as a medium-size apple, or as a humongous apple; similarly, it can be given any colour, taste, shape, texture, etc - it is an imaginary apple, and as long as the mind considers it an apple, it can be altered to any extent. In contrast, that which is real, requires the use of (skeletal) muscles in order to be changed or transformed. A real thing cannot be altered at whim using only our mental capacities; it is required that we exercise our capacity of movement in order to affect it. So, if we want humongous, real apples we would need to carry a series of movements which end result would be humongous apples; for example, cross-breeding and artificial selection. Given this interpretation of what is real and what is not, one is left in doubt about if ideas are real or not. One might be inclined to think that they are not since ideas can be transformed at ones will without the use of any (skeletal) muscles; but careful examination reveals that one can change other people's ideas through one's movements and vice versa. So, ideas are real because, following this interpretation, they can be altered through ones movements.

It is sooo tempting to troll here and say, real is just another word for metaphysics.

Because saying it twice is not funny. But still, I giggle because I share that same frustration with T Clark.

On a more serious note and putting aside what I said earlier about "real" here, if a word is causing more obscurity than clarity, perhaps its best either to drop the word, or using it sparingly. We can get awfully tangled up in arguing about the meaning of words as opposed to arguing ideas.

we can argue about what is and what isn't real, but at the very least physical things, including apples, have to be considered real or the word "real" doesn't mean anything. — T Clark

I don’t disagree with your definition but is it not somewhat limited? What does it give you – the realness of quotidian objects like apples, chairs and presumably bananas?

Setting aside questions of philosophical realism, does this understanding of real not lend itself to a form of verificationism? It’s only real if you, and presumably others, can experience it as a physical object?

The big fights about what is real seem to happen in a different space – Platonism, UFO’s, the voices inside the heads of people with psychosis, demons, gods, etc.

I’m looking at a glass of water in front of me which is presumably real. Last night I dreamed of a glass of water. I picked it up, I drank from it and I put it down. It seemed real too. Until I woke up.

Are you implying that I'm the most ruthlessly rational figure on the forum? — T Clark

Would that it were so.

Reality is ineluctable — 180 Proof

I avoid the rain by staying inside. Hence, it is not ineluctable; and not real.

The voices in my head, one the other hand...

One wants to say that reality is what is the case, what is true, and there is a truth in the idea that reality is what does not go away when you don't believe it. Reality is what our ideas and words bang against. We're unable to put what it is into words without spouting nonsense.

And yet we are certain of it.