I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat

Firstly, how is "objectively true" any clearer than "reality"?

Secondly, this implies that subjective stuff, pain, joy, thought, is not real.

And third, why render things that happened in the past not part of reality?

I think you know the difference between what is real and what is fake, or illusion, or counterfeit, and so on, so why do you need a definition?

I've viewed reality as, "That which does not contradict your identity of the world." So, if I viewed an apple as healthy, ate it and got sick, that's the end reality. If I ate the apple and did not get sick, that's the end reality.

I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat

But it must be considered that objects only exist in relation to, or for, subjects. What is ‘objectively true’ is always a matter of judgement. That doesn’t mean that anything goes or that total relativism reigns supreme, as there are many matters of fact which we are obliged to acknowledge are objectively the case, in the sense of being the same for all observers.

What you’re saying is close to that expression, ‘the world is the totality of facts not of things’, but even that will elude any precise definition, as facts constantly change.

I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now." — Cidat

Reality is the whole cosmos. But in philosophy, we really do not have a hard definition of it. Philosophers do not intentionally define it, for good reason. Instead, what we have is a contrast against appearance, illusion, imagination, and possibilities. This is the best way to understand what we mean by reality. A negative definition works better than any other attempts.

I think you know the difference between what is real and what is fake, or illusion, or counterfeit, and so on, so why do you need a definition? — Banno

Good question.

To reveal delusions.

ALL definitions need to be - and are - incomplete. The useful ones are consistent.

If you wish to define ‘reality’ as this or that it is fine by me as long you make it clear and distinct from what you regard other views of ‘reality’ being. Otherwise you will get accused of shifting goalposts to suit any point you are trying to express.

I can see merit in that.

I'd define reality as .. — Cidat

Here are some of my own attempts... — 180 Proof

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/749399

Can't believe that an OP of just two phrases is not put in The Lounge.

Abstract generalisations of this sort can best be defined by considering their negative space - that which they exclude. What is unreal, can be virtual, imaginary, illusory or delusional. Thus an image can be a real thing- marks on a surface, while whatever is depicted - portrait or landscape, is unreal. But the depiction itself can be real or imaginary in its content, rather as a map can be a map of actual or fictional territory. one might notice that the word 'real' is a real word, but it is only a word and not the real thing to which it refers like the map or the portrait.

It becomes clear that the word needs to be understood in context, in order to define its particular contrast, or negative space on each occasion. So no definition will be entirely adequate. For example, if one distinguishes Reality from mere talk - word from thing - map from territory, then to define reality directly in terms of truth is to put it on the wrong side of that divide as referring to statements and depictions - the very opposite of what is mostly meant. Rather I would like to say that reality is that about which one can speak truth or falsehood.

I think that "reality" is best characterized as the definiens rather the definiendum, as an attribute or universal. So it is the intension that applies to the extension, which is the set of "the real."

Can't believe that an OP of just two phrases is not put in The Lounge. — javi2541997

Just as you can have quantity without quality, you can have quality without quantity.

Just as you can have quantity without quality, you can have quality without quantity. — Pantagruel

Well, it is a big debate on what we consider "quality" on this site when the subjective interferes and depends (a lot) on who is the author of each thread.

Well, it is a big debate on what we consider "quality" on this site when the subjective interferes and depends (a lot) on who is the author of each thread. — javi2541997

And do you consider having that debate in each individual thread to be a better quality approach than conducting it in its own thread?

Yes.

Yes. — javi2541997

Quality response.

Quality response. — Pantagruel

Indeed.

In what sense do you intend to define it? Real, in English, is an honorific term; if someone says to you "here's the deal" or "here's the real deal", or if they say, "this is the truth" or "this is the real truth", they aren't implying there are two kinds of deals or two kinds of truths, they are just emphasizing the word.

There are things in the world which have a certain appearance and utility, which we call "chairs" and use accordingly, likewise we do something similar for mathematical formulations, within a specific framework of understanding. Same with fictional entities, people, history and cities, etc.

The substantive question, it seems to me, is the issue of mind-independence, is the thing you are describing as "real", something which exists in the extra-mental world, or is it a solely a mental construction, with no external anchoring?

Can't believe that an OP of just two phrases is not put in The Lounge. — javi2541997

Good call. I was going to flag this thread on that basis, but I have done that. It is saved somewhat by the inclusion of the second of the two phrases, which at least provides a starting-point for debate, but still, it's very skimpy considering the gravitas of the question.

My working definitions:

First iteration:
"Best possible model."

Second iteration:
"The most accurate and the most complete abstraction of sense experience."

And perhaps, but not very practically useful: "That which is described by this best possible model"