I agree with you in seeing philosophy in relation to the issue of certainty and knowledge. I think that the area between imagination and knowledge is one which is not completely answered by metaphysics or science. I think that this is the challenge, going right back to questions of knowledge, and I probably see this as one of the most interesting horizons within philosophy for the future.

I agree that the scope of our understanding is one which is evolving. However, I do wonder if it all goes in trends in what ideas are seen as popular and what is pushed and that there may be cycles in this. In particular, we have so much science and that is the en vogue perspective in philosophy and mainstream academic and thinking within Western culture. However, there are many who think that ideas going back to the Greeks are of vital importance.

Of course, I think that each one of us wishes to find the essential ideas, but we are basing our thinking upon the ideas from our own education. Certainly, I don't think that many people would disregard science completely, or I doubt whether any point in the future of humanity that could happen, but I do still wonder if the development of thinking is strictly linear, and if humanity is able to survive for many centuries to come, how will philosophy and ideas evolve further?

I attended a few talks on Marxism as a student, but have never found the Marxist position to be very interesting as a philosophy in its own right. I think that Marx did make some useful points, mainly about politics. These have been used in all kinds of ways and angles, and I think that politics would have gone in a completely different direction without Marx, just as Freud had such an enormous influence upon culture.

However, I think, ultimately, he did think in terms of commodities. In this sense, he deflated imaginative possibilities. I think the mysteries of philosophy are not really about coming up with any definitive answers, or questions about metaphysics, but about not ruling out the scope of imagination.

I think that your point based on your reading is extremely important. It is useful to think about whether rather than just asking about whether question about reality are about asking those metaphysics and about the physical world, or about the human construction of the idea of reality. I think that it is complex because we are human beings and viewing the matter from the human perspective.

But, the idea of reality is a construct and, most definitely, before I started this thread I was thinking about that. Any description of the way we view reality, even if it involves certain ideas, such as descriptions of the facts about the physical world is bound up with the idea of there being a 'reality', of which we can speak or discuss.

I have already mentioned it in the thread from which the discussion about this emerged, but I think that it is relevant to your discussion too. I read A J Ayer's book, ' Language, Truth and Logic' recently and it points to the way in which it is not possible to speak of metaphysics in the way in which we talk about the facts about the empirical world. The author does not dismiss a priori knowledge, but does suggest that it is often used in ways which create tautologies.

Ayer argues that metaphysics is about speculation, and that is its limitation. He suggests that he is not trying to say that people should not make speculations, or be discouraged from having certain beliefs, such as believing in God, but that they present difficulties in arguing for them as metaphysical realities because they cannot be spoken of as definite facts. I think that his argument does come into play in the whole process of asking metaphysical questions.

I think that you are still making a generalisation and thinking in stereotypes when you suggest that 'fat' people are lazy and eat a lot. I don't like the word fat even I don't think that it is even about being politically correct, but because I have seen people being taunted as being 'fat' and bullied.

But, going back to the idea of people being lazy because they are overweight, I have worked with many who are far from lazy. As for eating a lot, I am sure that many do, but I am not sure that it is always true, as it may be about what they eat. I think that there is even a link between obesity and being poor in the Western world. I also have heard people who trying to lose weight saying that it is more about changing diet is the most important factor.

However, we aren't really just talking about weight issues but about stereotypes and generalizations. I think that one other stereotype is about the way in which people think about religious people. I think that once people are put into a category people make stereotypical assumptions about certain beliefs. For example, I have seen people making assumptions that people who are religious, Christian, Muslim or some other faith, will be anti gay people. This is based on certain ideas about sexuality within religious thinking, but it is not the case that all religious people have certain views about sexuality.

I think that stereotypes are about generalisations, which rule out viewing the particular. It is when people begin to make assumptions about the individual without even asking for more details. I think that it can become a basis for prejudice and discrimination, such as in employers' unconscious bias in job interviews.

In the first place, when I began thinking about whether the world around us is solid, I began thinking to what extent we, as human beings are solid. However, I guess that is more complicated than whether tables are solid, partly due to the aging processes and also, because we are made up mostly of water. So, thinking about tables makes it a bit easier as a starting point, although I do think it is worth considering whether we are more solid or less solid than tables in terms of firmness. I actually think that tables are firmer than human beings because they are not part of nature, and do not get sick and die.

But, if you think about the solidity or firmness of tables, it partly comes down to them not being liquid, and they don't evaporate. If we leave a table in the room overnight, we can rely on it being there, in the same shape in the morning. However, I can remember one table I had collapsing when I put about 200 books on it, but that probably didn't mean that it was not solid in the way of physical existence, because it is not as if it just disappeared.

I think being solid is also about being in the three dimensional world, although I think that there are probably about 5 or 6 dimensions, or even more. But, thinking about objects is about being in three dimensions. So, we could say that the e books we read are less solid than the paper ones. Going back to tables though I think that existing and being surrounded by space is important. It comes down to existing as matter and being a structure which ensures for a substantive amount of time. I am not sure that they are absolutely solid, but I think that they are more solid than living parts of nature, because they are not subject to impermanence to the extent that living beings are, and are not mortal.

I think that sounds far more explicit. I think that prejudice needed to be in there because that is the way in which stereotypes create difficulties.

I realise your usage of the term and I like the way you use it, but your use of maya led me to wonder about the use of the term going back to the ancients.

I think that your first title was far better because it was more powerful, but, of course, I get really caught up in analysing my titles and end up editing them so many times...

I think that prejudice and stereotypes do relate to one because when people think in stereotypes, which are like caricatures, it often leads to judgements about people in a negative way. For example, a few people who are struggle with weight issues have told me that they do feel that people make assumptions about them being lazy and a few other things.

I feel that the connection between stereotypes is also interconnected with stigma. Erving Goffman described the way in which certain aspects of a person, especially appearance can stand out so much in others' perception of them that it affects the nature of interaction in a detrimental way.

The quote from Nietzsche is useful. I also think that the idea of maya, is interesting. It features strongly in Eastern thought, but I wonder how much is a literal or symbolic truth. I am sure that there are different interpretations of the idea. I think that the extent to which concepts in religious ideas are taken literally or symbolically arises when we look at certain texts.

The way it works on my phone is that at the end of the post I created it says something it shows a black tab, saying, 'View Answer'. I usually don't press it but I think that I probably hit it accidentally when I am reading the replies. But, I do think it all may depend on what devices we use, and I think that it is likely that many people are using computers whereas I am writing on my phone.

I forgot to answer your query about the original title. I believe it was, 'What is reality? Is it solid? ' I changed it because it seemed to be too focused on a science based understanding and not about reflection.

But, I realise that I probably fiddle around with my threads too much, but it is just the rut I have got into after months of lockdown blues. I am trying to rebuild my life, and I am hoping that in doing so I will engage with this site a bit differently...

The accepted answer function is pretty wierd because, suddenly, it seems that I get the words showing up next to some answer. I imagine that it is a part of the software, either that or the site has its own mind and selects an answer. But, it is a bit annoying because, often, it makes at appear as if one post is the correct answer.

I suppose it comes back to the issue of qualia once again, especially in how we experience the weather, although it can be measured to some extent. Of course, it does go beyond qualia, because it varies in location, especially as it gets so much warmer in America than it does here in England. But, there is so much subjectivity in how we feel the weather personally. I know that I dislike any weather extremes whereas some people like snow or intense heat.

I do agree that emo is the pop end of metal. But, what I think is interesting is that Andrew Lloyd Webber has praised and ranked My Chemical Romance's 'My Black Parade' album. I also see Marilyn Manson as an important postmodern artist, and I think that a lot of the painting and art on his album covers are done by him. I also read his autobiography and it shows the depth of his own reflection.

I think this is a really old thread you have dug up but I quite like it because I have some kind of liking for metal music, although not as much as I used to. I have kept à lot of the albums which I have, but don't listen to them that often because I think that they are probably not too healthy to listen to, personally and for any underlying ideas, such as Nazism, although I try not to interpret music too concretely. I think one of the darkest albums which I came across was Metallica's 'Hardwired to Self Destruct'. I bought it but, somehow, I felt that I should not go into that territory.

However, one album which stands for me is Slipknot's, 'When All Hope is Gone', as well as Korn's 'Issues' I do have some Marilyn Manson, but the one that I think works best is 'Mechanical Animals.' I also really like HIM and the crossover into goth. Also, I like hardcover and emo, especially My Chemical Romance.

I think that many people see metal music as negative, but I feel that it can be a way of transmuting the negative. I used to go to see live metal bands and even a metal music festival. I found the experience, including the moshpit, to be exhilarating, as a philosophy of integrating the negative, rather than projecting it outwards.

I tend to stay out for the strong sun because it hurts my eyes. I once developed severe vitamin D deficiency in the middle of a heatwave, but all this does depend on my own belief that the photons and the sun itself is real. I also presume my body is real, to the extent that I took my blood test results as being important. I expect that if we did not believe that the world was real at all we would end up with a belief that the universe is a simulacrum.

You say that 'it's impossible for human beings to realise realize actual reality.' I think part of the problem is even when we try to be objective we cannot really step outside of it. However, I think that this being part of is helpful rather a hindrance. This is because being it is so much easier to understand on the basis of experience as a starting point. For example, we have so much more understanding of the way human minds work than those of animals. But, I definitely believe that there are potential limits to knowledge about reality, even with the best methods and scientific approaches.

I definitely think that narration is central to the whole way we understand ourselves and life. I say that because the way we frame our experiences, and everything else is interpretation, requiring narrative voice. I once read an overview of philosophy book by Bryan Magee and it was organized in an autobiographical way. I thought that this worked well because each of us interacts with ideas through the course of life, so it can be useful to look at philosophy in that way, starting from our own lives, and the way they are interweaved with our own narrative or autobiographical experiences.

I am not opposed to physics. It is not a subject which I come to with much knowledge because it was a subject which I did not even choose when I took my options of what to study at age 14. However, I do see it as important in thinking about philosophical questions relating to reality. But, I probably have to try to look to the books which I am more able to understand, but also allow for a certain amount of guidance for those who have studied more. Nevertheless, I am don't think that it means that I should not take a certain interest in it, and do my best to develop some understanding of it.

You asked me whether I feel that I am information or energy. I would probably go for energy, because I am organic. I wonder if others wonder whether others feel that way or differently, but it may be a starting point for phenomenological approaches.

I wasn't aware that of what you describe as the thread having come to a close. I was about to write a couple more replies but fell asleep. Are you thinking the thread so poor that it should stop, and I don't think you have expressed your view on reality yet?

I think I do agree with your perspective of faith, in its true meaning. What we are told to adhere to as faith by others is false faith really, whether it is the dogmatic one of people coming from a religious, humanist or any kind of one which is prescribed by others. We have to find what makes sense for us individually rather than just take other people's word for it, uncritically.

I don't think that reality is completely solid, not even tables, although they are probably more solid than other aspects of it. I really started to think it was not so solid about 3 years ago when I was reading about the quantum world.

However, I do believe that the idea that it is not solid is one which is not really shared by the majority of people. I have worked in psychiatric nursing and I am just wondering what reaction I would have got by the staff I was working with if I had said that to staff I was working with. I am inclined to think that many would have thought that I was going a bit crazy. But, I think that it mainstream logic, not even philosophy which clings to a picture of reality as being so solid.

I am not sure that the comments in the thread have changed my ideas that much. But, I am not saying that the physicists should have the final word, because there is ' bad physics'. But, I think I probably never thought that reality was that solid going back to when I first read Walt Whitman and William Blake.

I will tell you my thoughts on fiction and on faith. Fiction is about story and our life events consist of stories. Even though fiction consists of fantasised stories I believe that they often resonate with the ones in our lives, even if the fictional ones are often more dramatic. They probably need to be written more with more drama than we could possibly deal with at most times, not just to make them worth reading, but also to make points strongly enough. Also, fiction involves the emotional aspects of reality and moves us in that way.

I also think that a lot of people who write fiction do include some aspects of their real lives, but probably have disguise them carefully. For instance, if an author is writing about a relationship they had experienced, it needs to be done in such a way that the character does not resemble the other person if the writing becomes published or it might become rather awkward.

As far as faith goes, I think that it has to be able to withstand the test of rationality. That is probably the main problem with telling people that they should not question, because for many people that is rather difficult, or not particularly helpful psychologically. I am sure that I was told many times by people that I should not doubt or question. In some ways, that made me think that the things I was being told to believe in were a bit dodgy in terms of credibility, because otherwise they would not be in danger of crumbling if subject to scrutiny through reason and analysis.

I have read your post and the discussion about it.
In some ways, I agree with what you and Austin are saying with the point about the table. A couple of weeks ago, I read, 'Language, Truth and Logic' by A J Ayer and he speaks of how it is possible to get into tautologies in trying to develop metaphysical aspects of philosophy. He points to the way in which metaphysics is really just speculation.

My own thinking is that I think that it is extremely difficult to come up with any definitive answers about metaphysics, because it is hard to come up with any specific evidence. However, I think that most people, do question how reality works at some point. I think that it may be more about how it works rather than anything else. The natural and social scientists come up with many explanations and theories, but I think that for many people there is still something missing, an unknown element. I am sure that more advances will be made, but I am not sure that it will really capture the invisible aspects of life fully.

Thanks for your detailed response. I will look at it tomorrow and reply further, because it is is after 1am.

Of course, I come from my own limited experience, but it does seem to me, from reading and experience that often the debates in philosophy can be about repetition of the ideas of the past. I do not see any answers, but do believe that the exploration of lived experience is extremely important.

I am not convinced that life is about luck entirely, because there are so many aspects underlying experience, but I do wonder whether these will ever be addressed fully, even within philosophy.

I can see the danger of making questions bigger than they are, and I think that it about seeing the limitations of philosophy as a discipline. However, I think that your whole approach of philosophy as lived experience is important. My own view is that philosophy needs expanding, rather than becoming caught up in models from the past, or even the most current models of science and mathematics, in order to embrace the whole dimension of living experience.

I wrote a comment but I am deleting it because I don't think it fits in well on this particular thread.

Thanks for your latest post.What you are saying, and Hadot's book does sound interesting because I think that we probably do need some kind of exercising of our minds or consciousness to understand reality. I am sure that this goes beyond all reading, even though it is worth reading books to see how others have found answers. However, the answers about the ultimates of reality are not actually in the books themselves, but have to be found in our consciousness

The goal of understanding the nature of reality, is probably illumination, or enlightenment. And, I am not sure that this is just the entitlement of those who are of any religious, or particular philosophical outlook. But, I do think that you are right to say that some kind of exercise, such as meditation is likely to help, Meditation is important, I believe, but it is not easy and I often find I procrastinate about practising it whereas I am sure that it is probably more important than many other forms of activity.

I like your sets of reflections, and I find the one which stands out is 'we are not what we think we are.' It seems likely that human beings probably develop interpretations of themselves and humans in general, some which deflate and some which inflate themselves. A lot of the thoughts which we have may be wrong, or, at least, only very partially true.

I think that what you are saying is a similar kind of thought to what I was thinking about when I began the thread a couple years days ago. It is the whole puzzling area arising from the personal embodied experience, looking outwards and engaging with the so-called objective world of reality.

I think that part of this is what is discussed as the intersubjective aspect of existence. But, it is not merely about interaction with other human beings, and shared meanings. Aspects of life are inanimate and others are animate, but we are having to understand all these different parts, as well as the question of ultimate reality, and if that exists at all.

Strangely, even though I am aware that Hegel's
'Phenomenology of Mind ' is not phenomenology in the sense that most people understand it I have a copy and I think that it may be one of the next ones I read. I have read some of, but not all of 'The Philosophy of History', and definitely believe that Hegel is essential.

I was fairly lucky in the start of my philosophical studies because I studied Social Ethics in Lancaster, and it covered many different areas of philosophy, although a lot of social science. I also met so many interesting people, although we had all just left school. I have studied and worked in London for some time, but apart from a couple of people, I think that most people think that I am ridiculous reading the books I do. When I was moving last year one of my flatmates suggested I should throw my books in the bin. But, I am glad that I moved a significant portion of them because that was just before I found this site.

I think it we live in a society which values cars, houses and is extremely materialistic. But, I do believe that there are many people who do not really hold on to materialistic values, but often they are probably isolated. I believe that we live in a very fragmented culture.

I had not thought about it as schizoid, but on some level it involves splitting. It is interesting though how people who become psychotic really go into the concrete interpretation of religious experience. I came across so many people with religious psychosis in mental health, and I have friends who have had breakdowns involving religious delusions. It is possible to lose all rationality really.

Anyway, I am about to log off for now, as it is about midnight...

While there is a division between the empirical and the metaphysical it is a bit of a knot because one has to think in some kind of metaphysical concepts about the metaphysical. Also, ideas about the metaphysical are often based on empirical observations.

I think that philosophers have to remember that reality is lived rather than just about reading and writing. I also have to remember it myself because at times those activities can be so absorbing that they become life. However, I do feel that many others go to the opposite extreme. I have a couple of friends who are interested in philosophy but I think a lot of people see it as a bit offbeat when it comes into conversation, rather like the way people see those who are into science fiction.