Reality, Truth, Illusions, and Chaos

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Reality

When people deem something as ‘real’, it is always a mistaken judgement–an error. When a person says, “this is real,” it has a specific contextual reference. They mean that what is ‘real’ is what is ‘practical’. This is an extremely common category error based on many different factors. For example, when I say my chair is ‘real’, what I mean to say (like other people) is that my chair is here and now (in space and time) and that I know it through my senses. I can touch it, see it, push it around and hear it, etc. Although I can experience the chair through my senses and conclude that it is really here and now, it is not necessarily ‘real’ by definition.

Reality is a metaphysical claim based on the objective-subjective dichotomy of experiencing life. The precise mistake being made, in our American-Christian culture, is that what is ‘real’ is being claimed to be ‘objectively real’ (i.e. made true and real through God’s Being). Every claim of what is ‘real’, or what is ‘reality’ is a metaphysical claim. As you should know, metaphysical claims are almost always impractical, which makes this category mistake interesting…

‘Reality’ is a metaphysics assumed to be true, which people then base their practicality off of, but is the metaphysics aspect needed? I say, “no.” We can experience the chair and not call it ‘real’. Why would it matter whether it is real or not if it is practical regardless?

2

Truth

The ‘truth’ of things is forever unknown. Not only is it unknown, but it is also infinitely unknowable due to the present form of the human mind. Human beings are necessarily ‘ignorant thinkers’ for a diverse amount of reasons. The human mind is limited by evolution, but luckily for human beings, the human mind is continually evolving through time.

1+1=2

Again, using practicality (the philosophy of pragmatism), this mathematical equation can be called ‘true’, but it is not ‘really true’. What is the difference? One statement is practical and one statement is not. It is ‘true’ only insofar as it is recognized as a human-constructed METAPHOR. Outside of this metaphor, 1+1=2 holds absolutely no ‘truth-content’, because it is strictly a human construct.

A problem occurs with ‘truth’ as it does with ‘reality’, due to our American-Christian culture. What is deemed as true is believed to be objectively-true (through the power of God). Thus, some people believe that 1+1=2 is true, because it holds true outside of our subjective beings. The reason that this is false, is because it is a human-constructed metaphor. What does the number-entity ‘1’ truly stand for? How about ‘+’, ‘=’, or ‘2’? These are concepts based on abstract thoughts. In fact, all of human language and representation is originally based on abstract thoughts. The trick to understanding these conceptual puzzles is to trace them in history and how we as humans come to develop and understand them.

What does [1] [+] [1] [=] [2] ‘truly mean’? How can it be true? Here is the explanation:

[‘One’ object known through the senses] [can be grouped with] [a similar (equivolant) ‘single’ object] [and shall be called] [‘two’ objects, seperated by numbers, yet unified by human order/categorization].

This is the practical explanation and it is true. However, it is not ‘really true’ in some metaphysical sense.

3

Illusions

Illusions appear when the senses are ‘fooled’ or ‘tricked’, but my contention with this definition is–how are we supposed to know the difference? Better yet, why can’t we just call ‘reality’ an illusion?

Although I’m tempted to bring up Descartes for this exercise, I shall refrain, since his philosophy is outdated and contemporarily impractical.

Reality is an ‘illusion’, because I will argue that there is no definitive way to decipher whether people are tricked into believing something that is said to be ‘real’ or ‘true’. As I’ve already demonstrated, what is real and what is true are both meant to say what the practical context of something is or is not. What is ‘real’ is what we experience through our senses. What is ‘true’ is what we label and categorize as such. Being practical in both regards gives us no metaphysical answers. Through pragmatism, this is the result of truth and reality.

So, what is the problem with saying this: “The ‘reality’ that people believe in is actually an illusion.”?

There is no problem if you consider that the senses can easily be deceived, but what does it matter if they are easily deceived? Is it existential anxiety that causes us problems? What are the practical applications of assuming reality to be this way?

When we experience being, what is the issue with accepting the practical consequences? Yes, we ‘know’ the world through our senses, but the senses can be easily fooled or manipulated by the so-called ‘objective world’. Since the senses can be easily fooled, then what paradigm should people use to know things? Will a person choose to pursue knowledge through philosophy, believe arbitrary religious knowledge, or accept the rigorous knowledge produced by science?

When it comes to ‘reality’, what should we think of the senses? Reality is an illusion, because the knowledge that we seek through our senses is illusive. Reality consists of the subjective-objective dualism, but when reality is known for what it is, an illusion, then the dichotomy is broken. What is deemed ‘real’ and ‘true’ is just what is practical. There is no need to fear the illusions that appear to our minds. If people were to accept the illusive nature of our experiential being, then the classical puzzles of ‘reality’ becomes clear. I believe that according to Socrates, this is precisely why we must “know nothing”, since it is not within our capabilities to know truths or realities without metaphysical principles.

4

reserved

5

When someone say something is real, they usually mean that they can sense it with their 5 senses. They’re basically saying that it’s real because they can sense it in space. But something that exists only in the mind can be just as real. It’s real in time which is just as valid as existing in space. We call it the imaginary because we can’t sense it with our 5 senses. But our 5 senses were made to sense space, not sense time.

6

Interesting Theory.

There’s no proof that 1+1=2. We only believe that, because we were taught that.

Our brain acts on instincts, and instincts alone. To say something is “real”, means that it exists.

7

Really? I’d like to hear how you think that’s true?

8

What you think is true is just as real as if it’s true. That is why people believe in religion. It doesn’t really matter if religion is true or not, what matters more is if the people that believe thinks it’s true. If they think it’s true then it’s real to them.

9

I believe it is better described as a truism, or a tautology. It does not require “proof,” as its true by definition. I think the bigger point is that this truth does not “exist,” as numbers are abstractions of “reality.”

I hate it when I have to keep putting “things” in quotes.

Reality is real. Whether or not it is “true” seems somewhat besides the point to me.

10

Precisely!

11

In light of this I would ask, what is to stop a person from believing in one religion over another? Where is the overlapping validity of truth/reality?

12

They either believe in the same religion that their parents did or they pick one that’s compatible with their own beliefs.

13

And where is the overlapping validity that underlies moral relativism/arbitrariness? :wink:

14

Where is it? It depends on their beliefs. I’d rather not go into specifics. With over six billion people in the world the chance of people having similar thoughts are pretty high. Plus we are the sum of our experiences. And most of our experiences are similar to each other.

15

think Helen Keller , she was both deaf and blind . yet she had to deal with a fundamental reality of which we all have to deal with substance