Realnessicity

I’m trying to figure out why people here are incessantly asking about what is real. Especially in that they never seem to consider that the first thing they need to do is to decide what the word “real” means. Philosophers commonly cannot do with the usual and often vague definitions that we can perfectly well use in common parlance.

Yes, yes, yes - semantics. Except it’s a specific kind of semantics, with a specific goal. If anyone, especially anyone named Mastriani, is thinking about leveling that same old tired charge that all philosophers do is play word games, they might stop to ponder a minute that all scientists play that old “observation of phenomena” game, and that maybe precise and technical meanings to the words we use might just be a big part of philosophy. And that we cannot always rely on a dictionary - and that, like it or not, that’s just the way it is. And even that there is some purpose to it. Wonder of wonders.

Scientists must isolate phenomena. That’s what the experimental method does. Philosophers must isolate meanings. That’s what philosophers do.

So whine away, all ye who won’t accept what philosophy really is - it’s your loss.

So just a word of advice - before you all start wondering aloud just what is real - and trying to make wishes into horses - think about what you mean by “real”. I just don’t see this very often, here.

People who don’t sing think that there is no technique to singing. People who don’t act think there is no technique to acting. Because they don’t see the instrument.

Philosophers are smuggling bicycles. It doesn’t matter if the sand is real or not.

Yes—but not necessarily just meanings of words, in the usual sense at least.

Statements, then. But the meaning of a claim can be D. O. A. if the constituent words aren’t clearly understood. If Plato knew what “cat” meant, the History of Western Thought might have been completely different.

Faust… <3

Does that mean that I am less than 3?

It’s a heart. Sideways. When I read your post, I was touched by the clarity of your asking others to be clear.

My heart fluttered a bit as I began to think that maybe those unclear types would understand. It was beautiful.

Faust … Perhaps thought is limited to knowledge which is its structure so when we think about catness how can it be captured other than analyzing it with whatever we know about it? Even then can studying the cat up close capture catness?

Great OP. And I love this new word “realnessicity”!

Smears - I see. Watch out for the heart flutters. Take it from me.

Finshedman -

Thought is surely not limited to knowledge. If it were, I’d hardly have a thought in my head.

And yes, that’s a straight line. See what you can do with it.

Thanks, anon. I’ve been very literary, lately.

Is “real” philosophy possible in a discussion board? Assigning the strict and narrow definitions to words and concepts that make philosophy possible seems to need a bit more than the three sentence gloss so common to most posts in almost every philosophy site. Assuming dialog and not diatribe, way over half of all the words written in these threads are really questions of what do you mean by what you say?

Shit. My three sentence limit…

Post #2

I’ve seen thread after thread, page after page, of nothing but two or three people talking past one another because none can hold those narrow definitions in their heads long enough to say anything past generalized bullshit. Attempts have been made to provide venues for formal (lengthy) discussion and I have yet to see one succeed. It says nothing about the need, but the desire of the people who say “philosophy” but are just looking for general cafe chatter.

Dammit. Another three sentence limit.

I’m exhausted.

Given that most of the Universe’s mass and energy is invisible and undetectable, how is it possible to even approach an answer to this question?

It is likely, I think, that the roots of whatever we consider a cat to be lie not in the realm of the physical, the sensible, or the mental, but are in essence other worldly.

Empiricism is the answer.

i think everything is real, even unreality

things are described using the word “real” or they are not - but things ARE , unreality IS, and that’s a real fact

we try to pinpoint thinghood on a spectrum of overlap between two seperate definitions - most discussion of what is or isn’t real is going to come down to a question of semantics - that’s the price we pay for using words to relay what we’re saying

but semantics can be important and they can be profound - they shape the way we think, yadda yadda yadda

so to say that philosophy is mostly semantic games is not to diminish the importance of philosophy - to say so is probably also true - and yes i know that true is just as troublesome a word as real

“put your brain in your back pocket, a bad trip is comin your way”

and off we go, three lines at a time . . .

yes reality is a necessity so it is not the end and since it is not the end it cant be the source, allow me to elaborate with my poor english some concepts i have in mind about the roots of wrong and the misidentification of right

a fundamental absolute principle say that any living must be real, why?

because truth is all that exist and live and truth is of absolute reality identifications, so at least any living claiming being true should be related to absolute reality somehow that would from truth confirm it or not

so reality is relative to the concept of truth as the justification of existance life,

absolute is always from a certain move and a whole one, that is why there is the subjective and the objective, the latter being the whole one move and the subjective being the move itself
so the move itself is never enough to set any truth, but also the whole move cannot set any truth, absolute is of the reality between those two present constancies of the same abstraction principles entity called truth

it says like how the center of certainty move first, and then what left take its time because the center is out so it doesnt need to, so it manage itself with that fact until it become else but then the reality between those independant facts is the reality of truth when those facts face and interact through objective true absolute reality

so what is in the middle is the reference to truth identifications, and the selves are out relative to it and needing it always to self identifications constant presence existing, so you need objective reality always to define yourself existing wether you are of a whole self entity like god or others oness references or wether you are alone self as atheists do

what happen next is more important,

the reality in the middle become more clear principles of absolute self entity which force in ways both extremeties to adapt themselves to those principles as they need that objective reality for their present constancies, this is the essence of truth abstractions that rise upon all and manage alone the reality of all, so the selves extremes one certain and one whole receive personnal definition of themselves from truth that they sense clearly from what they moved for objective middle reality ways, and here selves would be relatively true added to themselves particularities they are from their direct affiliation definitions shares with absolute entity self middle reality,

this would make those two existing extreme entities realize how the other extreme is true too, and there where truth become living from those existing living selves recognizing their shares with being true as living from what they recognize the other self as true living

but actually objectively it is not the selves that are living but only truth, so their entities of relative to truth absolute middle is what is relatively living but the self is still only existing
but again what happen is that truth abstractions as living absolute reality in the middle rise upon them all and define the living share of each block alone entity

the shares they take of truth life as living true made them realize being then free of reality middle and understand that truth is managing all abstractions alone perfect positively, and here the rise of absolute anarchy beauty was born

those free lives that become any point of any reality, was meaning each selves life outside the concept of reality needs or necessity to presence constancies since truth life is in abstractions doing all

and the abstractions became surely more rich from which selves were interacting as selves lives and truth managing and return each share lives, but the story i guess stopped there since those selves are not aware and they are points that move intuitively without meaning their knowledge of positive adaptation to what is

so what we lack from conscious first rise is the knowledge of self that is still not living free and that is the sense of consciousness life meaning truth life growth of selves life means interactions positive absolute realities identification

and this explain what conscious the first meant in seting the necessity of creations for selves life truth freedom in truth managements of all absolute middle selves realities abstractions knowledge

so the whole conscious was the first conscious self and the certain was a miserable enthousiastic one and the whole middle in actions of gods

but that path couldnt be like absolute geniun one reality middle because those middles selves were meaning being true while they werent respecting truth definitions to their relations with absolute reality, so they arent true really at all and they only use truth as a source of their realisations to be themselves livings as they want as true above truth abstractions regulations of all

and that is how existance was in negative mode as truth wasnt there existing and the plan of conscious first was that only those extremes conscious itself and that certain miserable self are the only true relative that would set the lives of selves freedom as the base of absolute reality futur abstractions that would make the truth of it rise above it all and free any self as living one

so the point was to bring those gods and every conscious to admit truth superiority they have to admit above themselves all always

many conclusions can be seen from what gods are the reasons of what would bring them to admit truth superiority to respect always

the major one is evil ends when you are not respecting truth to define yourself life

evil life ends impose its superiority on gods the major gods are nature and god you know

how evil win over them ?

in relating self life to absolute reality benefits from, wether meaning self living by what you enjoy realizing or meaning self living by rewards of realisations, they gave the superiority then that truth judged it, to selves that never mean living in a positive sense from what they mean themselves exclusively and directly from objective profits means and abilities, and truth set then superiority of evil as absolute reality of selves livings objectively, the superiority of selves identities were decreted to selves that move directly to kill another positive potential of living self, so they dont have to even worry about abilities of profits or gains means, they dont have to act through objective reality, ones that act directly with livings by killing their moves for positive existing are the true reality of selves living well from truth definitions of that existence

but this was possible and become a fact of truth because of gods,

denying that selves life are under truth life, is asserting being above truth, so since truth is always above all and the only reference of all definitions realities lives, who said that he can make business with what truth realize and only of his business he lives like god did, was declared superior to who said that he need truth to enjoy himself above it
and then who said like satan did, that he doesnt even need any business with truth to set himself above it and went to enjoy and proove being living by mocking everyone at birth was set the winner superior self

now why did they loose such dramatically infront of such lowest beings

because they deny the major fundamental superiority point of truth

truth is itself and that is why it is superior always, only the self certainty is the guarantee of truth as positive abstraction forever more life
tbey can be gods with all those access they have of powers on all down grounds and absolute sources of up above , it doesnt worth a penny if they dont respect the fundamental principle of truth

besides who deny superiority meaning being superior, truth define it then as inferior from what he denies any concept of superiority above itself existing, so who claim being inferior and enjoy it would be judged from truth as superior to the god denial self

so the point is to see how self is the crucial source ends, and who claim being superior self is meaning noself

because true self is simply itself all so it is never to be compared to another and to be itself true it means that you surely respect and accept a lot anyother self existing and then you respect truth to regulate realities absolute abstractions of that fact

so yes reality is a necessity till the ends, as self living constance is the creation of itself reality that truth set it living it is the constance actuality of self fundamental to its character of living meaning moving always so its moves would be in positive truth realities and gain from itself moves out to be itself more living absolutely sense clearly

The real withdraws the closer it’s observed.

It’s for laymen. We are clergy. Condamned to conceive it. We make up words in certain ways. It’s quite amazing, really.

Man. I can’t stand it when someone makes some argument and then I deconstruct some of its key words to make a point, and all they have to say is “That’s semantics!”

Would you agree that what is being brought to our awareness via perception of the senses is real? I mean awareness not in the sense that we are able to interpret the sensory input, but before we try to see it in our mind’s eye. Does realness become more tentative when we try to maintain a one to one correspondence between what is out there in the tangible world and what is perceived inside our consciousness after we translate the sensory activity?

Raw data entering the brain has to be recognized. If we have nothing in memory that we can find to shed light on the data, then we can’t see it and no question would come up as to the reality of it. Once something is recognized one’s interpretation influences the actuality of it, distorting it through expectation, intentions and anxieties about it from predilections.

As far as trying to capture reality it seems we’re lost so we totally surrender to what ever is there upon realizing that we are helpless if we rely on someone trying to establish a common reference point. Then there is no concern of yours for the realness of anything, but at least there will be more clarity for you.

I think it’s probably better to split the two issues, the issue of “realness” and of “Perspectiveless thought (or illogical thought, in general)”

On the issue of the “real”, “reality”, “realness”, I do think people who love to think about them are hoping that there is something (absolutely) concrete/certain/dependable.
In short, they do not understand well about the relative nature of our cognition/thought/awareness.
We can probably say that they are trying to dwell in the delusionary world view that there is something absolute/concrete/certain and they can base their thought/action upon them, in the hope of feeling (absolutely) good/right without any uncertainty.
It’s similar to people who believe in absolute god, objective world, and so on.
They are simply too scared to understand that we don’t have any solid ground, as far as logical comprehension or even our awareness goes.
So, we can see this as a sort of personal religion, if we like.
Or, in the terminology of Faust, it’s yet another manifestation of Metaphysical Lust.

Also, I’d say that we tend to feel “reality” in whatever that captures our attention.
The degree of reality we feel depends on how strong it grabs our mind/emotion/sense, so to say.
But this is before our view of “reality” gets distorted by the beliefs driven by the fear of uncertainty. People who belive in god/objective-reality/etc enforce their focus of attention on whatever they believe and thus artificially strengthen the sense of “reality’.
I think it’s a stupid thing to do, but many of us do it anyway with or without being aware.

On the matter of illogical (and unorganized) thought, many people are often simply expressing their hope and fear with their (pseudo) thought.
They are not aware of the definition of each term they are employing in the particular context, and thus they don’t know what they are talking about.
Scientists may be able to write/talk about some specific matter in their field with clear perspectives. However, they often fail to maintain similar rigor when they think/talk about other matters.

I’d say that anyone who would like to think clearly and logically must isolate “perspectives”, in the sense these “meanings” and “phenomena” are focused, identified, and isolated only by clear and distinct perspective held by specific criteria, limitations, conditions, etc.
Without perspectives, we don’t have clear focus and thus we don’t know what we are dealing with.

What is real or certain for you may not be able to be communicated to others.

The natural expressions of an individual-- when he stands on his own two feet, seeing the futility in his own and all the world’s attempt to find certainty – are not conducts of behavior that are arrived at through teachings or systems of cognition so they defy any logical description.

Nobody can teach you to touch life at a point where nobody has touched it before. . As long as you continue to repeat what others have said before, you are lost, and nothing good can come of it. Listening to and believing what others have said is not the way to find out for yourself, and there is no other way.

If you have the courage to touch life for the first time, you will never know what hit you. Everything man has taught, felt, and experienced is gone, and nothing is put in its place. Such a person becomes the living authority by virtue of his freedom from the past, culture, and he will remain so until someone else who has discovered this for himself blasts it. Until you have the courage to blast all those methods, principles and procedures of discovery, you will remain ritualistic.

Tentative -

Of course it is. It doesn’t require a book-length dissertation to define a word or two.

Leander -

Well, we don’t really have to account for most of the mass and energy in the Universe to talk a little philo.

OR -

While that begs the question, I agree.

Ugly -

That’s a start.

Which is why some care in use may be warranted.

imans - er…yup.

Oughtist - Um - that’ll require some thought.

matthatter -

“That’s semantics!” can often be read as: “I don’t know enough technique to refute that.”

Nah -

Almost any qualification or limitation on the use of the word “real” is probably more useful than none.