Philosophy Now Forum

What is real?
reality = occurring or existing in actuality

The above is circular because what is existing and actuality circle back to 'real'.

As such to determine what reality is, we need to understand the context, sense, or perspective involved.

However, there is a lot of confusions when the concept of reality is discussed because there are two senses of reality.
When one party adopt one sense, the other other party insist on another sense of reality, they are talking pass each other or one is ignorant of the other's version of reality.

There are two senses of reality. i.e.

• 1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
  
  2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality.

1. The human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard]
What is real, facts, truths, knowledge and objectivity are conditioned upon a specific human based Framework and System of Reality [FSR] and Knowledge [FSK].
The most credible, reliable and objective at present is the human and empirically-based Scientific-FSK as the standard at 100.
The lesser credible and objective FSKs are, e.g. the theistic FSK based on faith is merely 0.001 of the standard.

Reality is all-there-is, 'all' includes all person[s] in existence.
What is real is Empirical Realism [Kantian aka Transcendental Idealism] which is in contrast to Philosophical Realism.
As such what is real must be empirically verifiable and justifiable plus supported by the finest philosophical reasonings.


2. The philosophical realism mind-independent sense of reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism
"Philosophical Realism can also be a view about the properties of reality in general, holding that reality exists independent of the mind, as opposed to non-realist views."

Philosophical realism [2] is a very dogmatic ideology [ism] which was invented from an evolutionary default of a sense of external-ness existence of things outside to facilitate basic survival for all organism since 3.5 billion years ago.

The reality of Philosophical Realism claimed by p-realists is merely an ASSUMED reality for it was never intended to be realistic in the first place, but emerged as an idea of external-ness to facilitate basic survival.

The problem is all philosophical discussions arise when p-realists insist their mind-independent reality is the really-real reality when they are ignorant their sense of reality is merely an assumption.

What is most realistic is the human-based FSR-FSK-ed sense of reality [scientific-FSK - the Standard][/b] which is grounded on 13.5 billion years of forces since the BB.
What is most realistic is that which emerged and is realized within those embedded conditions within human nature before such realization is perceived, known and described.

My advice to philosophical realists,
think and reflect deeper when you insist your sense of reality is really real and note there are other counter claims of what is more realistic, i.e. the human-based FSR-FSK-ed reality of the science-FSK is the most objective.

Threads related to the above;

There are Two Senses of 'What is Fact'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39587

Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

Also note;
All Philosophies are Reducible to ‘Philosophical Realism’ vs ‘Idealism’ [anti-p-realism]
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=28643

In line with the above,
There are also two senses of truth, knowledge and existence.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 3:50 pm The expression 'thing-in-itself' is meaningless. But let's pretend it isn't. Here are some valid arguments.

1
P1 If there can't be things-in-themselves, then the claim that humans can't know things-in-themselves is fatuous.
P2 There can't be things-in-themselves.
C Therefore, the claim that humans can't know things-in-themselves is fatuous.

I have stated;
There are Two Senses of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40265
1. The FSERC sense - human based and realistic.
2. The philosophical realism - human independent sense which is grounded on an illusion.

As I had argued, your sense of reality is begging the question, you merely assumed [without proof] there is something-X pre-existing in the external world independent of yourself awaiting discovery to be known. This is literally the thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves.

Thus based on your delusional view, if there is no something-X, then logically cannot know any something-X.

I would not say your claim is fatuous, but it is a necessary delusion which is useful for psychological purposes due to an evolutionary default and existential crisis.

On the other hand, in the FSERC sense, there is no pre-existing something-X awaiting to be discover, perceived nor described.
In the FSERC case, that something-X emerged and is realized by the individual within a collective-of-humans framework and system, then it is cognized, known and described based on empirical evidences.

So that something-X is known based on experience and empirical evidence and this something-X emerged and is realized with humans, NOT assumed to pre-exist and awaiting discover to be known.

So even there is no things-in-themselves, things [things-X] can be known based on experience and empirical evidences of what that emerged and is realized. What is critical is what-is-known is translatable to pragmatic utilities.

Your idea of a thing that is independent of humans can be jettisoned and there is no loss to humanity in terms of utilities; the only loss in it will shake and threaten your psychological security.

See, your thinking is so primitive and primal, narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

2
P1 If there are no things-in-themselves, then there is no reason to say there are only things-as-they-appear-to-us.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.
C Therefore, there is no reason to say there are only things-as-they-appear-to-us.

Again, what appear to us can be verified and justified based on experience, empirical evidences supported by critical thinking.
Just open up the senses and there are appearances; there is no need to speculate there is something that is absolutely independent of the empirical evidences.

3P1 If there are no things-in-themselves, then there can be only things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits.
P2 There are no things-in-themselves.
C Therefore, there can be only things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits.

I think 1 and 2 are sound. Does anyone challenge the soundness of 3 - and on what grounds?

The reality is there can be only relative things-as-they-appear-to-rabbits, bats, reptiles, ...... and man.
There are no absolutely independent things that is or should be the same for all living things.
You see and sense a piece of hard ice, a virus only 'see' clusters of this;


WHO ARE YOU to insist what you perceive as appearance NOW is absolute, certain and final?
Even science-proper will not insist what it conclude is final and absolute,
not unless you claim to be an omnipotent, omniscient God!

you are the captain of your own destiny...

NO NO NO, we are your gods! you will obey, it is as we say!!!

gird your loins

-Imp