The Nature of Reality

Opening Position:

1.) Everything that exists must have at least one quality (or attribute), even if that quality is existence itself.

Imagine that you are sitting in a room and someone puts a picture in front of you of a pair of feet and says, “Describe those feet,” if the feet are large one might say, “They are large,” if one thinks the feet are hairy, one might say, “The feet are hairy.”

For the purposes of this discussion, we are going to assume that there is a comparative object in this picture. In this case, the comparative object is going to be a ruler which we are assuming to be twelve inches long and not a ruler built and designed to a smaller scale. If an individual notices that the heel of the foot is lined up with the base of the ruler, yet the toes exceed the distance of the ruler, such a person might say:

“Those feet are big.”

Clearly, the length of the feet exceeds twelve inches, and most shoe stores only carry men’s sizes up to twelve or thirteen, so to say that the feet are big is a reasonable assertion. However, in this case, the person showing the picture is not so sure the assertion is reasonable:

“Why do you think they are big?”

“Because they are larger than most feet.”

“Have you seen the majority of the world’s feet?”

“What?”

“There were over 281 million people counted just in the United States in 2000, with that in mind, have you seen the majority of all pairs of feet in the world?”

“Well, no.”

“Then how do you know that those feet are big?”

“I don’t know, they just are.”

“You’re right insofar that you don’t actually know, but based on your limited experience with feet, you are assuming that those are big feet. When you say that they are bigger than most feet, what you mean is that they are bigger than most feet that you have seen, right?”

“Right.”

The point of the dialogue above is to illustrate that much of what we know is nothing more than a comparative assumption based upon our limited empirical experiences, not only with feet, but with everything else that can be experienced empirically.

Now, if we were to show the subject of this test a picture of a person’s face and the guy says to the subject, “This is a picture of the person to whom those feet belong,” barring any obvious inconsistency; (such as the person in the latter picture being an infant) the subject is going to assume that what is being said is true. The person has no apparent reason to believe that the administrator of the test should be lying. Now the administrator says:

“Without mentioning or referencing anything from the second picture, tell me something about the person in both pictures.”

“The person has big feet.”

“You mean to say that compared with your knowledge of the feet of others, the person has big feet.”

“Right.”

The point here is that the adjective, “Big,” is not actually being used to describe a quality of the person, but is being used to describe the quality of the feet. That the person has big feet is a quality of the person, but more specifically, the feet are a possession of the person as the word, “Has,” is defined, “Of or belonging to.” In this case, the definition could be properly applied as both of (quality of the person) and belonging to, (a possession of that person.)

Now, if the subject wished to make sure that the feet in the picture belonged to any given person (or make sure to great an extent as possible), then the person in the photographs could come out and the photograph of the feet could be compared to the actual feet. Even then, if the subject chose to describe the person as, “Having big feet,” the subject is still not describing the person on the whole, but merely a quality of the person.

The same concept can be applied to reality to the extent that we experience a smaller portion of reality (as compared to how much of a person is physically comprised of their feet) than we do of a certain person when we say, “He has big feet.” Therefore, we may make statements about physical reality, and we can even make quality statements, which is to say statements using adjectives, but we must understand that we are merely making statements based upon our limited empirical experience of physical reality.

As a result:

2.) Any quality statement that can be made regarding a person is not actually a statement about that person, but a statement about a quality or attribute of that person.

3.) Any quality statement that can be made regarding a person is not technically a statement of knowledge, but is rather a comparative statement of assumption with the comparison being based on our individual empirical experiences.

4.) Any quality statement that can be made regarding physical reality is not actually a statement about physical reality, but a statement about a quality of attribute of physical reality.

5.) Any quality statement that can be made regarding physical reality is not technically a statement of knowledge, but is rather a comparative statement of assumption with the comparison being based on our individual empirical experiences of what reality was as opposed to what reality is.

What we must understand here when it comes to comparing what physical reality was to what physical reality is is that we are only comparing our limited knowledge of what physical reality was to our limited knowledge of what physical reality is. In other words, we are comparing a specific quality (or qualities) that physical reality had to a quality (or qualities) that physical reality now has.

6.) We cannot know all of the specific qualities that make up a specific person.

7.) A specific person cannot be fully described, but qualities of a person can be described.

8.) We cannot know all of the specific qualities that make up physical reality.

9.) Physical reality cannot be fully described.

Can aspects of physical reality be described, though?

If we are to assume that there is a sort of meta-reality (unsafe assumption, by the way) that is somehow over and above physical reality, we would have to assume that physical reality would be an aspect of this all-encompassing meta-reality, which we will simply refer to as, “Reality.”

10.) In the event that there is a true reality, physical reality must be an aspect of this reality, for if it is not, this reality would not be all-encompassing and would therefore not be reality. Because physical reality cannot be fully described, yet the totality of physical reality is merely an attribute of this greater reality, this greater reality cannot be described.

In short:

11.) Reality cannot be described, but aspects of reality can. However, (Much like seeing the picture of the person to whom the feet allegedly belong as opposed to the actual person) because we cannot experience reality all at once and as a whole, (like we can when we see the physical person and are able to compare the picture of the feet to their feet) we can only make assumptions about reality and never have any true and complete knowledge of reality, but we know for sure that anything that does exist physically is an aspect of physical reality because physical reality encompasses all that exists physically.

12.) Reality (as a whole) is unknowable, but in order to exist within reality (much like in order to complete the test above) assumptions must be made based upon our limited experiences.

13.) Reality exists because it has at least one quality, for example, that it is unknowable is a quality of reality.

What came first … experiencing secondary limited aspects of reality or the invention of the idea of reality?

If everything out there is reality, aren’t we an intrinsic part of it and our tying to experience it through linguistic descriptive labeling is what limits?

Pav - a few comments:

I think it’s a difficult position to say that existence is a quality or property of a thing. We do treat it that way, yes. But I think “location” works better as a minimal case.

I’m not sure what difference it makes. Perhaps you could elaborate.

And the assumptions are about what? Our individual empirical experiences?

Again, I am not sure what the difference is.

I guess…but if we are generalising about what reality was, we already accept that these assumptions will endure.

This is doubtless true.

Okay - but this can be said of any description, of course. Descriptions can be comeplete enough for a given purpose, though - can they not?

Sure, if you are talking about particulars. But we can know “red” without knowing about everything that is red.

Again, sure, if we are talking about particulars.

if that’s what you’re getting at, then sure. Limits are a fact of life.

What happened to partial knowledge?

In my opinion, the experience of the secondary limited aspects came before the conception of reality. I would imagine that it happened when someone realized that there are things occurring (and changing) outside of his experience, which is to say that there are things that happen when the person is not there. Having realized this, the person may have decided to create a concept used to describe everything that happens, or everything that is, whether or not those things are being actively empirically experienced by the person in question.

To the second question, we ourselves are an aspect of reality. I don’t think that the linguistic descriptive labeling limits reality, though. Reality is going to exist as reality exists regardless of what linguistic limits we do (or do not) put on it. Besides, I don’t think that the language is causing us to have limits, but rather that the language helps us understand what the limits we have are.

That sounds right. After the discovery of a new happening, it immediately becomes something known and how thoughtful it would be to name it for posterity. As this accumulation of recognized knowledge grows, we see the further unfolding of a reality … At least in a certain domain where verification by means of repeatable successful results occurred. Actually, even if we did not get the results we were assuming would happen, it’s still a kind of peculiar reality. Now I’m wondering what the heck the reality we are talking about is.

That’s a good point and I agree, otherwise the position is viciously circular.

The difference it makes is number six, which you agreed with. It is necessary that we cannot make quality statements about a person (which describe the whole person) in order for number six to hold. If we could make quality statements to fully describe a person, then it would be necessary that we could know everything that there is (specifically) to know about a person which would void number six.

The comparative assumptions are about the empirical experience that we either are having and trying to analyze, or have had and are trying to analyze, versus all of our other relevant empirical experiences. For instance, if I am trying to analyze the size of a person’s feet (analyze in this sentence essentially meaning, “To form an opinion,”) then I must compare the size of that person’s feet compared to the size of all feet that I have experienced (and can remember) or compare it against other knowledge about feet however empirically gained.

Imagine if you had only seen three pairs of adult feet in your life, male sizes 6, 8 and 10. Based upon this, you would assume that the guy with the ten-size had extremely large feet, and if you were uneducated, you might assume the guy with the tens had the largest feet in the world. Then, you run into six more pairs of feet, all of which happen to be size elevens or better, (with a few being significantly better) now you would probably assume that the tens are somewhat small.

Basically, we take in all of this empirical information and we make general assumptions about reality based upon the information absorbed. The more information we take in, the better our assumptions should be. I say should be as opposed to will be because ten is not a, “Somewhat small,” shoe size, though in the example above, one might deem it as such.

Reality cannot be fully known, therefore, we cannot make statements about reality and have any indicator of the accuracy of those statements. In other words, qualities of reality will be able to be compared (to other qualities of reality, or other qualities that reality had) but we cannot compare the whole of reality to itself because we cannot fully know reality.

Thanks!

Descriptions can be complete enough for a given purpose, and the given purpose for many of our descriptions of aspects (qualities) of physical reality is the process of living. This is the reason for many of our assumptions about qualities of physical reality (ex. gravity) as well.

That’s true, but red does not physically exist as an object in and of itself, so that doesn’t defeat the position.

We are.

What you are referring to as partial knowledge is a comparative empirical assumption based upon other empirical experiences. In any case, reality (as a whole) is not knowable which is the general point of the exercise.

I suppose the ultimate point behind this whole thing is that many people want to use reality as a Philosophical starting point. One of the first questions a Philosopher might ask himself is, “What is reality,” or, “What is real,” and the point behind this exercise is to demonstrate that (in general terms, or particulars) what is real or what is reality cannot be fully known. There is no reason to pursue this question other than to give yourself a headache. We cannot empirically experience reality as a whole, (which is clear when we consider ourselves an aspect of reality) but we can empirically experience aspects of reality, but to use the concept of reality (as a whole) in any Philosophical question is to complicate the question and not receive any benefit for doing so.

It can’t be fully known.

Faust … would you say that the reality one has come upon that allows him to live at least in par with the status quo is enough and there’s no need to deliberately pursue something more rigorous

Besides, don’t the things that are more reasonable and sound sort of naturally become us?

yeah, I know … but what direction, level or dimension is it coming from and where is it going? Sounds scary

… you guys still there …

Finishedman -

Yes, I agree.

Pav - I’m not sure if i agree with you or not, because I am not sure what you are saying.

I agree that any sort of Platonic reasoning about a True Reality winds up in Hegel’s Graveyard. We need a starting point for philosophy, and it makes no sense to make this starting point philosophy itself. My view is that any philosophy that we can actually use in our lives must be based on the conditions of life that we find. Looking for some Higher Plane works if we actually live on a Higher Plane.

If that is consistent with your argument, then I agree with your conclusion.

But partial knowledge of reality doesn’t produce a partial philosophy any more than incomplete empirical knowledge produces something less than science. Philosophy is an activity.

But philosophy must remain fluid just as reality. Philosophy is an activity that examines process, and the moment it becomes set in concrete (as it so often does) it is no longer philosophy. It becomes dogma.

knowthyself.forumotion.net/philo … -1-t73.htm

I understand what you mean now, but it’s just one of those, “It is what it is, it will be what it will be,” sort of things.

That’s exactly right, we do not live on a higher plane! You’ve always been pretty good at taking what I am trying to say and making it more concise.

Partial knowledge of reality produces entire individual Philosophies which are more likely to be valid because those Philosophies will be based only on such things that we have empirically experienced. That is exactly the point that I am getting at. It is assuming that we fully understand all of reality, (that we are on that higher plane) which will lead us to incomplete and errant Philosophies.

However, if we work within what we know (or have empirical reason to assume), we will be able to achieve personal Philosophies which are applicable to our own lives, and quite possibly to the lives of others who share similar experiences.

14.) If your knowledge of what you are attempting to Philosophise (reality in full as opposed to partial reality) is incomplete, then your Philosophy will be incomplete. If your knowledge of what you are attempting to Philosophise (partial reality) might be complete, then you might arrive at a complete Philosophy. If your knowledge of what you are attempting to Philosophise is complete, then your Philosophy will be complete.

15.) Given 14, the act (or activity) of Philosophy should be attempting to understand only that which can reasonably be understood by the individual in question.

It is when an individual attempts to know, think, or assume things that he cannot possibly know (and, in some cases, does not even have the potential to know) that he runs into a Philosophical problem.

Whether or not humanity’s development of self consciousness was a natural part of the evolutionary process I cannot say. But man is set apart with a separate high intellectual prowess. Was there a time when man wasn’t consciously aware that he was separate from the totality of life around him in his primordial past – where questions about truth or reality did not occur to him? Perhaps.

But we can now sense around us a kind of demand or desire to be part of the ’whole’, probably because the feeling of isolation creates uneasiness so philosophical and scientific endeavors, each in their own ways, have been called upon to guide us towards the goals of truth and reality that we may unite with them. But is the attempt on our part to become integrated with reality keeping us only more separate? Is isolated functioning part of the nature of complete reality or not?

Then why the need to examine reality. Are you implying that reality will just show itself naturally without cause to philosophize on it?

I’d like to respond to this as well as Faust, if I may.

I agree that in order for a Philosophy to be both correct and complete it must be fluid as reality is fluid, which is to say that the Philosophy must change with reality. It is for that reason that even if a certain Philosophy, given a certain set of empirical circumstances, is both correct and complete that it will not necessarily always be correct and complete.

Fortunately, in my opinion, I believe that I have cause to assume that not all of the changes in reality necessitate a change in a Philosophy. For example, if a leaf blows from one side of the parking lot to the other, that’s not going to have an Earth-shattering effect on my Philosophy. So, while a Philosophy (assuming it is correct) must remain fluid in order to stay correct, I think that it can do so at a more leisurely pace.

In fact, it seems that science is the major component that necessitates a change in Philosophy, especially when we come to find that the case is empirically different from what we once understood the case to be. (An example would be the Earth travelling around the sun as opposed to the other way around.)

I can’t speculate as to the nature of complete reality as that would be counter-intuitive to the entire purpose of this thread. The only thing I can say about complete reality is that I do not know it, nor do I believe that I will ever have the potential to know it.

When it comes to a self-integration with reality, I’m not sure I understand what you are asking. The general point is that we can only experience a partial reality, regardless of how integrated we are or are not with the rest of reality. All you are doing when you integrate yourself with reality is witnessing more of reality’s aspects, but regardless of whatever number of reality’s aspects you empirically experience (some people have seen more than others, for example) you are still confined to a partial reality.

That’s an interesting point, now that I think about it. Maybe it is this failed pursuit of the, “Reality,” that leaves some people feeling separate. Maybe it is because some people seek (in vain) a total and true reality that they feel disconnected from all of the rest of reality; maybe it is the goal of such people to become as one with all of reality.

The exact opposite. There is no reason whatsoever to examine reality, not if you are attempting to examine it fully because you will not be able to. There is, however, a point in examining the partial reality (which is those aspects of reality you have empirically experienced) because that examination is what Philosophy should be.