I dont know if anyone agrees with this theory or not. Would be nice to have some feedback though.
Very interesting.
That’s fair.
Hmm… what we assume to be real. Are you implying that there is no way to observe the contents of the “third reality”?
Observable reality is, by definition, observable. Rational reality can be observed (I have not seen Mt. Everest, but it is possible for me to see it).
But fantasies and illusions, or even religions and some structures of morality, can they be observed? I don’t think so. So does that mean that there’s anyway to verify whether the propositions of this “theoretical reality” are true? I don’t think so. But does that then mean that this theoretical reality IS NOT reality? Hmm… I don’t know…
Could it also be possible to add a “fourth reality”? This would be what we know a priori, independent of experience (basic logic, geometry, maybe even some philosophy? I don’t know… any thoughts?
I like that.
Here’s my version:
Outer reality:
The universe without anyone’s opinion about it. Unknown and completely real.
Inner reality:
What is real only to you; what is known only to the self.
Concentual reality:
What people all believe at once, encouraging eachother to all believe the same thing. Pop realism.
Good thread.
Hi oldphil,
Philosophers have come to call the examination of the nature of reality, ontology. As you might imagine, such questions have ancient roots.
A criticism of this questions points out that what we observe depends as much on the observer as the observed. Immanual Kant, for example, made a distinction between phenomena, or things as they appear to us, and noumena, or, things as they supposedly are in themselves; the so-called, “thing-in-itself.” Kant maintained that although we may get our minds 'round phenomena, noumena forever remain outside our mental grasp.
Pablo Picasso was supposedly riding on a train when another passenger, recognizing him, asked, “Why don’t you paint people as they really are?” Picasso asked him what he meant. To explain, the man pulled out a photo of his wife, saying, “That’s my wife.” Picasso replied, “Isn’t she rather small and flat?”
Again, we have to be careful. Think of phlogiston or the so-called, aether. These one once commonly held by scientists to be as real as Mount Everest. Turns out, they were only names without referants.
“One of Robert Frost’s longer poems ends with the line, “I had a lover’s quarrel with the world.” The philosopher has a like quarrel with common sense. He is not, as some think, her arch enemy; but her devoted admirer; whom she repeatedly betrays…For as soon as we look closely at even the most familiar matters, we are beset by paradox and confusion.” Nelson Goodman, “Definition and Dogma”
There’s a medical phenomenon called phantom pain. Folk with missing limbs often report pain “where” their limb used to be. Could you have a pain in your foot if you don’t have a leg, much less, a foot? Well, yes, if you feel pain in a foot then you have a foot-pain.
We can often be more certain that we grasp the reality of our fictions than we do, for example, the reality of tables and chairs.
I hope this helped to confuse you. 
Best,
Michael
Michael, whad did you think about my three reality classes listed?
Well, yes, we can never grasp the thing in it self, we are bounded to the world of phenomena. But because all we can know and experience is the world of phenomena, the world at is appears, wouldn’t that make it our “reality”? It’s the world we live in.
What about this.
Observable reality
What we experience with our senses within our lifetime.
Rational reality
What we assume to be real, and can be observed in our lifetime. Have never experienced it (Mount Everest)
Theoretical reality
What we assume to be real, but can not be experienced within our life.(Fantasies, delusion, that word that starts with G, um…)
Observable reality is related to rational reality, because Rational reality can become observable reality (you could see it), and because the assumption that it can be observed is based on observations. Theoretical reality is similar to Rational, but is not linked to Observable, because it is not based on observations and cannot be observed in one’s lifetime. So A is almost B and B is almost C, but A and C are mortal enemies.
I think that’s probably a good analysis of the matter…
But if we can’t observe propositions of the “theoretical reality”, how do we know they’re true? How do we even know if they are real? How do we even know if this “reality” exists?
Dan~ wrote
Hi Dan,
I apologize for having taken so long to reply.
How could you determine if something is real if it is unknown? Am I correct to assume that you’re talking about objective reality here?
Would this be similar to what’s commonly known as subjective reality?
Wouldn’t this only be a matter of having concurrently existing subjective realities? In other words, do you think that it warrants its own category?
Regards,
Michael
Outside of the human body.
Inside of the human body.
Inside the majority of human bodies.
That’s the location of the “reality”.
I’m basically talking about the space of reality.
Dan~ wrote
Hi Dan,
Only saying where reality is (which space it occupies) doesn’t say much about what reality is; don’t you think?
For example, we could say that all reality is located within the Universe. If U is defined as such that all R’s reside within U, then to come along and say that all R’s are located within U is to utter a trivial tautology. It’s true by definition, and yet it adds little to our understanding of the reality of the world in which we find ourselves.
You are saying that all reality is located either outside the human body, inside the human body, or inside the sum of all human bodies. Setting aside your last disjunctive clause (which doesn’t make sense to me), you’re saying that reality is located either outside the human body or inside the human body. Do you see why that statement isn’t exactly a worldshaker? You’ve merely presented a Venn diagram. You could have conveyed the equivalent information had you said that all reality is located either outside or inside a certain paperclip.
Now let me explain why the last clause in your disjunction doesn’t make sense to me. You’re saying that all reality is located either in A or B, or in the sum of all B’s (outside humans, inside humans, or inside the collective sum of all humans). But the universe of reality is already contained in your A and B. That is, imagine that you had some coins on a table but three of those coins had an overturned cup on top of them. Now you could say that the set of coins on the table are either exposed on the table or underneath the cups. But what would it mean to go on from there and say that you can also find coins under all of the three cups combined? This is why I asked in my last post
Lastly, the implication of your last post is that all reality is the same, except for the fact that it shows up in different places (or spaces). But if all reality were the same, how could there be different places (spaces)? In this view, bits of homogeneous reality couldn’t be clumped together here and there to produce distinct objects with their own aspects, because if distinct aspects are produced - then they exist; they’ve become real. But a distinct reality would be an embarassment any theory that says reality is all the same.
I hope that I’ve presented this in an understandable way, Dan.
Regards,
Michael