What is reality?

[Moyo]

Re: Moyo from earlier and to whether ideas (or forms) are real:

Formal definitions from logic demonstrate not simply a non-differentiating form. It uses both a genus and species description. This is where you define a concept by what class in belongs to with an additional clause that explains how each defined thing is different from the rest. You assumed non-logically formed definitions for concepts in philosophy.

You assumed that all definitions are simply tautologies. While they are meant to act 'tautological', they are not in error unless the description of the symbol, word, or phrasal used to summarize the idea, thing, or event lacks any new information content.

Thus,

A = B
is just a circular definition (circular). In computer science, this is used to assign to A what the present B stands for. So this tautology is functional. For the "formal" definition used in philosophy, precision requires specifying a symbol, word, or phrase like this:

[Symbol/Word/Phrase/Icon] is a(n) [thing/idea/event belonging to a Genus] that [differentiates by Y between each member].

Example:
[A car] is a [transportation tool or device] that [is created by humans to transfer people, places, or things from one location to another efficiently].

So definitions like this is used to reduce the necessity to always speak the whole sentence to the right but ALSO to demonstrate what something is in relation to what is the same of each member [genus] and what is different [species]. There's more to it than this but this is the fundamental way to assure clarity in what one means. It is the semantic meaning of the definition (not the symbol) that is intended to point you to the real meaning. It is the meaning that is real, not the words used to convey them. Nor do all meanings refer to actual reality apart from the mind. But for those, they are still real, but just not appropriately mapped to an external referent (outside your mind).

I'm not attacking definitions ...i'm attacking questions.
In order to formulate a meaningful question, all the parts have to be meaningful...do you agree. if you have the meaning to all the parts of the question.. why ask the question.
If you dont then your question is meaningless .(follow the thread of the underlined words)
Note ..its irrelevant what form the definition takes. if you words are all definined (so its clear what you are asking), however you want to define them, then you are obviously not looking for a definition (you have it allready)..could you point out what you would be looking for?

[Moyo]

To get closer home;

what would someone asking "what is reallity" mean by reality in the question.

i'm not saying you are wrong yet. I just want to see how you would adapt the car example to this.Can you not see an infinite regress looming. manchheusens trillema has been know for a while now.

[Moyo]

IMO something_really_wierd is going on.

Perhaps a laxative might help.

I donno...wont that make the insomnia worse?

[Obvious Leo]

IMO something_really_wierd is going on.

Perhaps a laxative might help.

I donno...wont that make the insomnia worse?

Wash it down with a glass of red and you'll be fine.

what would someone asking "what is reallity" mean by reality in the question.

I was only taking the piss because I disagree with the point you're trying to make. Surely the OP is seeking a definition of reality in the question "what is reality?" and all you're doing is saying that the question is meaningless unless reality is first defined. If reality must first be ascribed a defined meaning then what's the question?

[Moyo]

I was only taking the piss because I disagree with the point you're trying to make. Surely the OP is seeking a definition of reality in the question "what is reality?" and all you're doing is saying that the question is meaningless unless reality is first defined. If reality must first be ascribed a defined meaning then what's the question?

EXACTLY!!

The "what" and the "is" also have to be defined. Thats what we all spend the early years of childhood doing. learning definitions (meanings) of words. That was of total importance for us to be able to use them.

You cannot say something with undefined words or else your statement is unclear (you don't know and certainly no one else knows what you are saying).

Another term for definition is boundary. If something has no boundaries how can you point at it...or rather everything points at it. In order for elements of scentences to stand in relation to each other they need to have boundaries.

[Obvious Leo]

I understand your point and therefore reckon this thread would make more progress if somebody actually went out on a limb with a statement of position and then sought to defend it. As it stands the question has no focus.

I've actually done this here.

Reality is a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer MODELS AS a collection of objects moving in space.

I could offer another definition as a focal point for further discussion which expresses the above statement more universally and more explicitly.

Reality and the universe are synonymous terms and both can be defined as "everything that physically exists".

[Moyo]

Reality is a sequence of events occurring in time which the observer MODELS AS a collection of objects moving in space.

If that is what inglorious meant by "reality" you have done him no favour as he must have known it (already) to mean it. the only conclusion then must be that he didnt mean that and hence you are wrong.


I didnt mean to hijack this thread. this sort of stuff does what mancheusen did to definitions, to questions. Meta philosophy. Anyone for a shot?

[The Inglorious One]

I beleive people here give too much credence to concepts.

What did you mean by "reality" inglorious one when you formulated the question. Your answer lies there.

I agree.

Reality has no boundaries and therefore cannot be defined. It is indeterminate. Thomas Aquinas could have been talking about reality when he said, "In the end, we know God as unknown."

[Moyo]

I beleive people here give too much credence to concepts.

What did you mean by "reality" inglorious one when you formulated the question. Your answer lies there.

Reality, as it is within itself, has no boundaries and therefore cannot be defined. Thomas Aquinas could have been talking about reality when he said, "In the end, we know God as unknown."

Can it be meant as in what you mean by it?

[The Inglorious One]

I beleive people here give too much credence to concepts.

What did you mean by "reality" inglorious one when you formulated the question. Your answer lies there.

Reality, as it is within itself, has no boundaries and therefore cannot be defined. Thomas Aquinas could have been talking about reality when he said, "In the end, we know God as unknown."

Can it be meant as in what you mean by it?

No, but the human condition is relative and we need pointers to make sense of "it." Did you see my quote the the movie Lucy?

[Moyo]

Do you beleive all concepts are finite?

[The Inglorious One]

I know all mine are.

[Moyo]

But all concepts are yours silly.
Can you conceive of a concept that is not yours ? Thats impossible. Do you beleive the inconceivable? What then is that beleif if not conceptuallisation?

#idealisticSophistry

[The Inglorious One]

But all concepts are yours silly.

Are they?

[Moyo]

But all concepts are yours silly.

Are they?

Name 1 that isnt. Try not to conceive of it first.

Good luck!

#ProudRealist