Real is that which is the object of human inquiry. — Daniel
So what is not the object of human enquiry? — Banno
You seem to be saying that we can "formulate questions" about "Something that does not affect us in any possible way" — Banno
So it amounts to the claim that everything is real.Real is that which is the object of human inquiry. — Daniel
We can use "real" to differentiate in particular explicit cases - a real painting, a real foot, by understanding what the contrary is - a counterfeit painting, an artificial foot.
But some folk wish to contend that there is a way of using "real" that somehow goes beyond that, having no contrary. — Banno
Story Robert Creeley tells — didn't happen to him but another poet, I forget who — that after a reading someone from the audience came up to ask our poet about something he read, "Was that a real poem, or did you make it up yourself?" — Srap Tasmaner
do you only mean in the 'pants' sense, deriving it's meaning from the contrary? — Srap Tasmaner
Existential quantification is not about what is real and what isn't. — Banno
if 'real' is 'member of a non-empty class', then Sheldon proves that unicorns are real. That doesn't look right — Banno
You mean like my example in which Sheldon is a horse? Sheldon's being a member of the class <horse> means Sheldon is real; doesn't make the class <unicorn> non-empty. — Srap Tasmaner
Frodo, being a member of the class "Hobbit", is real. — Banno
Is Sheldon a horse or a unicorn? — Banno
there is the class of things that are not real. We don't want to treat that as empty, while still saying it has members. — Banno
If Sheldon is a unicorn, the by p(a)⊃∃(x)p(x) Sheldon exists. Are you happy to say that? — Banno
A better approach might be to suppose that being member of a class is not the same as being real. — Banno
We can use "real" to differentiate in particular explicit cases - a real painting, a real foot, by understanding what the contrary is - a counterfeit painting, an artificial foot.
But some folk wish to contend that there is a way of using "real" that somehow goes beyond that, having no contrary. — Banno
Jack thinks the bartender is real, but he's not.
What's the contrary in this case? — frank
Supernatural subtext of King's novel aside (are ghosts real?), is the contrary not Jack's recovered sanity (possibly via antipsychotic medication)? — Tom Storm
I've worked with many people with psychotic illnesses who mark a demarcation between unreal experiences (psychosis) and real life (recovery). — Tom Storm
I was aiming for the Kubrick version which is more ambiguous. — frank
There are drugs which can take the ability to distinguish reality from imagination off line. — frank
was aiming for the Kubrick version which is more ambiguous.
— frank
Sure, which makes it a problematic example for any hypothetical testing of 'the real'. — Tom Storm
What can this illuminate for us outside of film criticism and interpretation of the director's intention? — Tom Storm
I assert that in some cases, "real" is meaningful when it's only known negation is "unreal.". Kubrick's Shining is an example. — frank
Why? We're just looking at instances of use. — frank
And there's deeper significance to the real/unreal opposition. — frank
And there's deeper significance to the real/unreal opposition.
— frank
Tell me more about what you're thinking here. — Tom Storm
If the bartender is not real, what is he? A ghost? Then he's a real ghost. I'll go with and say if Lloyd is not real he is a symptom of Jack's psychosis; that is the source of the dramatic tension. From Austin, the key is to ask "if it is not real, then what is it?" Is Lloyd a ghost or a delusion? So your example seems to me to work in favour of Austin's account.Jack thinks the bartender is real, but he's not. — frank
I'm not sure what that is. — frank
And there's deeper significance to the real/unreal opposition. — frank
From Austin, the key is to ask "if it is not real, then what is it?" Is Lloyd a ghost or a delusion? So your example seems to me to work in favour of Austin's account. — Banno
So I gather you are saying that Sheldon cannot be a unicorn - that the class "Unicorn" is empty?
That seems to me to be an unneeded step to far. — Banno
But Frodo, of course, is fictional, and not real. If being member of a class is the same as being real, then Frodo cannot be a member of a class, and so not a member of the class "hobbits". If we followed that rout, we would not be in a position to talk rationally about fictional or imaginative characters. That's the step too far. — Banno
That is, one might set up a domain by ejecting imaginary and fictional stuff. — Banno
So it amounts to the claim that everything is real. — Banno
And hence, since we cannot claim of anything that it is not real, saying something is real is not saying anything about it. — Banno
Cells were not objects of human inquiry before 18th?century and as such they were not real in the sense he uses it. — introbert
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.