How to define 'reality'?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." is one definition.
I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now."
I'd define reality as "The sum of everything that is objectively true right now."
Comments (20)
Firstly, how is "objectively true" any clearer than "reality"?
Secondly, this implies that subjective stuff, pain, joy, thought, is not real.
And third, why render things that happened in the past not part of reality?
I think you know the difference between what is real and what is fake, or illusion, or counterfeit, and so on, so why do you need a definition?
But it must be considered that objects only exist in relation to, or for, subjects. What is objectively true is always a matter of judgement. That doesnt mean that anything goes or that total relativism reigns supreme, as there are many matters of fact which we are obliged to acknowledge are objectively the case, in the sense of being the same for all observers.
What youre saying is close to that expression, the world is the totality of facts not of things, but even that will elude any precise definition, as facts constantly change.
Reality is the whole cosmos. But in philosophy, we really do not have a hard definition of it. Philosophers do not intentionally define it, for good reason. Instead, what we have is a contrast against appearance, illusion, imagination, and possibilities. This is the best way to understand what we mean by reality. A negative definition works better than any other attempts.
Good question.
ALL definitions need to be - and are - incomplete. The useful ones are consistent.
If you wish to define reality as this or that it is fine by me as long you make it clear and distinct from what you regard other views of reality being. Otherwise you will get accused of shifting goalposts to suit any point you are trying to express.
Quoting 180 Proof
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/749399
It becomes clear that the word needs to be understood in context, in order to define its particular contrast, or negative space on each occasion. So no definition will be entirely adequate. For example, if one distinguishes Reality from mere talk - word from thing - map from territory, then to define reality directly in terms of truth is to put it on the wrong side of that divide as referring to statements and depictions - the very opposite of what is mostly meant. Rather I would like to say that reality is that about which one can speak truth or falsehood.
Just as you can have quantity without quality, you can have quality without quantity.
Well, it is a big debate on what we consider "quality" on this site when the subjective interferes and depends (a lot) on who is the author of each thread.
And do you consider having that debate in each individual thread to be a better quality approach than conducting it in its own thread?
Yes.
Quality response.
Indeed.
There are things in the world which have a certain appearance and utility, which we call "chairs" and use accordingly, likewise we do something similar for mathematical formulations, within a specific framework of understanding. Same with fictional entities, people, history and cities, etc.
The substantive question, it seems to me, is the issue of mind-independence, is the thing you are describing as "real", something which exists in the extra-mental world, or is it a solely a mental construction, with no external anchoring?
Good call. I was going to flag this thread on that basis, but I have done that. It is saved somewhat by the inclusion of the second of the two phrases, which at least provides a starting-point for debate, but still, it's very skimpy considering the gravitas of the question.
First iteration:
"Best possible model."
Second iteration:
"The most accurate and the most complete abstraction of sense experience."
And perhaps, but not very practically useful: "That which is described by this best possible model"