The Philosophy Discussion Forum

How real is 'reality'...

...considering that it can appear differently to vast numbers of people -- and they're all convinced that what THEY themselves see/think/believe is 'the true reality'. How is that possible?

...considering that it can physically change from moment to moment -- if 'reality' isn't actually stable, then what is it?

...considering a person's own views on reality can change throughout their lifetime -- if yesterday's perceived reality has evolved due to new understanding, is today's perceived reality any more solid than tomorrow's?

...considering that Earth religions are products of certain times and places and peoples, rather than the entire history and content of humankind -- if a supposed 'reality' doesn't encompass ALL, how can it be real?

Is the concept of 'reality' actually meaningless and simply a tool for claiming to definitively know?

“Reality” is an empty concept.

Which begs the question how real is emptiness?

What is emptiness but the necessary blank space upon which all form appears and disappears, which begs the question what is the shape of space? Which begs the question, is form made of the space it’s in, or is space made of form. Which begs the question, what is the difference?

See Nietzsche's Perspectivism. A reality is constituted by two things. The objective state of something without it being observed (Berkeley was wrong, btw) and the inner 'experience' of it. The 'experience' of this objective state can not be objective like the state itself is... and there are as many different experienced realities as there are individual creatures. For instance, you and a house fly share the same world, but your experience of it is utterly different. In the end, you and the house fly are doing the same thing. Both of you are indifferent to 'truth' and the actual objective state of the world (whatever that may be) and are engaged only in navigating the experienced inner world given to you by your sensory organs. Your 'perspective' is the product of this engagement, and it is absolutely unique to you.

That being the case, 'true' reality is a useless concept... one you couldn't have anyway. In turn, by being useless and unattainable, it can't serve as a driving force. That's to say when you say "i want to know the truth" and set out to experience the world, you're still only getting a world your senses allow you to have. How then can you claim to have a stake in the truth? You can't. What you mean when you say "I want to know the truth" is really "i want power over this reality," "i want to find out how to use it." This is what you have a stake in because without it, you suffer. But knowing how much of the world is an illusion and a genuine concern for 'truth'? Okay... what would you do differently if you realized it was an illusion? Ah. The same thing you were doing before; trying to have power and control over the new real reality you just discovered.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am How real is 'reality'...

...considering that it can appear differently to vast numbers of people -- and they're all convinced that what THEY themselves see/think/believe is 'the true reality'. How is that possible?

Well, we all experience the true reality, there are just a lot of different ways of interpreting it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am...considering that it can physically change from moment to moment -- if 'reality' isn't actually stable, then what is it?

That's yer Heraclitus. If a river is never the same water, what is it? Versions of eternalism, such as Parmenides or the block universe notwithstanding, the reality of our experience is fluid.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am...considering a person's own views on reality can change throughout their lifetime -- if yesterday's perceived reality has evolved due to new understanding, is today's perceived reality any more solid than tomorrow's?

Not really. Some people believe that new information inevitably improves our understanding, while others believe that we got it right x years ago when such and such a book was written. I'm much more inclined to the former position, but reality is a slippery thing.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am...considering that Earth religions are products of certain times and places and peoples, rather than the entire history and content of humankind -- if a supposed 'reality' doesn't encompass ALL, how can it be real?

There are sects and religions that are all embracing: Christian Universalism, Sikhism, Baháʼí for example, and while it strikes me as true that all religions are equal, it doesn't follow that any one is real.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 amIs the concept of 'reality' actually meaningless...

Well, for practical purposes, I don't think it's meaningless, just unknowable.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am...and simply a tool for claiming to definitively know?

If you meet someone who claims to definitively know, back away slowly and look for the exit.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am How real is 'reality'...

There's a self-contradiction, right there, in the question.

It reads, "How REAL is REALITY?" It uses the word "real" two different ways, one objective, and one subjective.

By contrast, if ALL reality is subjective, it cannot be any concern at all whether or not it's (objectively) real. Nothing is, then. Nothing should be. Nothing can be. So it cannot be, in any sense, "bad" or "deficient" for a "reality" to be totally "unreal." Delusions are fine, because there's no 'other condition' to which they can be measured. Delusions are then all we have.

It's only if there is an objective thing called "real" to which somebody's "reality" is not measuring up that you can worry about this. And clearly, that's the intention of your question -- to imply there's something inadequate, deficient, wrong, misguided (choose your own best negative word) about people's view of "the real". That is, that their "reality" is off-point, relative to "the real". But you're attempting to deny, at the same time, that there can be such a thing as a single, objective reality, are you not?

So the question cannot even be rendered sensible. It denies the possibility of its own question. Unless you're taking for granted that somewhere, there's an objective reality to which somebody has some access, you can't even render the complaint cogent.

So your own assumption has to be that your own question isn't valid.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am

Applicable to everyone…

Mental configurations comprise past and future.
The brain is the medium for memory (the past) and conjecture (the future).

Real reality really exists in the eternal present.
The eternal present is the medium for phenomena.
Phenomena are the external world.
Past and future are the internal world.

The present there is not the present here before the shockwave from there gets here.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am How real is 'reality'...?

Hi Lacewing, I hope you are doing well.

I suggest that you can eventually derive the answer to your OP question if you will first picture how “real” your mental holography “appears” to be when you experience the multi-sensory features of an extremely vivid dream.

Indeed, when our consciousness is directed inward when we sleep, sometimes our dreams can seem - almost as “real” - as the reality we experience when our consciousness is directed outward into the universe while we are awake.

Now, just imagine the possibility that instead of that “semi-conscious” awareness of our (again, almost real-appearing) dreams we experience while asleep,...

(a semi-conscious state of mind in which we possess no control over the 3-D features of our dreams)

...we instead have somehow managed to awaken into “full-consciousness” and total-control of the infinitely malleable substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created.

I’m talking about a state of inner being in which we are not only able to consciously and willfully create literally anything imaginable out of that infinitely malleable substance from which our thoughts and dreams are created,...

...but a state of elevated awareness in which everything we do create, will appear to us (appear to the eye of our mind) as being just as “real” as the reality we experience out here in the universe.

Now, if you can just imagine having literally “forever” to wield and manipulate (form) that...

(now totally “real” appearing)

...substance into the same state of order that we witness as we stand on the Earth and look out into this universe,...

(a state of order that has already been achieved by what I am suggesting is the fully-evolved, fully-matured, "ADULT" version of what we are)

...you will then understand what the word “real” actually means in the context of your OP question...

How real is 'reality'...?

I explain all of that much better in a short (8 minute) excerpt taken from one of my video lectures I created for Grand Rapids, Mi., Public Access Television back in the 90s - (back when I had hair that has now gone awol ).

If you click on the following link,...

https://youtu.be/78kpTL9eFFY?si=AIJZveN37DJyO7KS

...it will take you to that short clip on YouTube.

Please let me know what you think of it.
_______

A toothache or migraine will confirm the reality be he atheist or theist; Berkeleian or Humean.

...considering a person's own views on reality can change throughout their lifetime -- if yesterday's perceived reality has evolved due to new understanding, is today's perceived reality any more solid than tomorrow's?

...which only amounts to a change in perspective by the same perceiver. What remains is the latter regardless of whatever mutations of reality he or she encounters before the real end of one's imagined non-reality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 2:04 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Mon Aug 10, 2026 8:12 am How real is 'reality'...

There's a self-contradiction, right there, in the question.

It reads, "How REAL is REALITY?" It uses the word "real" two different ways, one objective, and one subjective.

The "Holy Trinity" is a self-contradiction also, if there is only one God. However, it seems to be something some theists believe in.

if ALL reality is subjective, it cannot be any concern at all whether or not it's (objectively) real. Nothing is, then. Nothing should be. Nothing can be. So it cannot be, in any sense, "bad" or "deficient" for a "reality" to be totally "unreal." Delusions are fine, because there's no 'other condition' to which they can be measured. Delusions are then all we have.

All reality is subjective. And it CAN be a concern to us.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2026 3:38 pm All reality is subjective. And it CAN be a concern to us.

Is that "really" true? Or are you only making a subjective statement?

If it's really true, then you've just disproved yourself. You made a universal, objective claim about reality. But you say that's impossible...

If it's only subjective, only the way you personally think about things, then it's not actually a statement about reality for anybody but you...so for us, it's false again. Which means it isn't even true for you, isn't even subjectively true, since it falls short of being a statement about all of reality, which it purports to be.

Either way, then, epistemic subjectivism must be false.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2026 1:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2026 3:38 pm All reality is subjective. And it CAN be a concern to us.

Is that "really" true? Or are you only making a subjective statement?

If it's really true, then you've just disproved yourself. You made a universal, objective claim about reality. But you say that's impossible...

If it's only subjective, only the way you personally think about things, then it's not actually a statement about reality for anybody but you...so for us, it's false again. Which means it isn't even true for you, isn't even subjectively true, since it falls short of being a statement about all of reality, which it purports to be.

Either way, then, epistemic subjectivism must be false.

If I like oatmeal, then that is true. Is it not? Is liking oatmeal an objective statement about reality? Or is it not an objective statement about reality? Would "I like oatmeal" be a true statement about reality, or would it be a false one, provided that I enjoy it when I consume it through my mouth?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 9:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2026 1:49 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 11, 2026 3:38 pm All reality is subjective. And it CAN be a concern to us.

Is that "really" true? Or are you only making a subjective statement?

If it's really true, then you've just disproved yourself. You made a universal, objective claim about reality. But you say that's impossible...

If it's only subjective, only the way you personally think about things, then it's not actually a statement about reality for anybody but you...so for us, it's false again. Which means it isn't even true for you, isn't even subjectively true, since it falls short of being a statement about all of reality, which it purports to be.

Either way, then, epistemic subjectivism must be false.

If I like oatmeal, then that is true. Is it not?

You've made a category error.

I've said that epistemic subjectivism is false.

You've asked if aesthetic subjectivism is false.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 2:37 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 9:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Aug 12, 2026 1:49 pm
Is that "really" true? Or are you only making a subjective statement?

If it's really true, then you've just disproved yourself. You made a universal, objective claim about reality. But you say that's impossible...

If it's only subjective, only the way you personally think about things, then it's not actually a statement about reality for anybody but you...so for us, it's false again. Which means it isn't even true for you, isn't even subjectively true, since it falls short of being a statement about all of reality, which it purports to be.

Either way, then, epistemic subjectivism must be false.

If I like oatmeal, then that is true. Is it not?

You've made a category error.

I've said that epistemic subjectivism is false.

You've asked if aesthetic subjectivism is false.

You said nothing about "epistemic subjectivism" or "aesthetic subjectivism." You're just moving the goalposts because you know that if you answer my questions I posed straigh on you're going to end up in a rabbit hole.

So will you answer these questions:

1) If I like oatmeal, then that is true. Is it not?

2) Is liking oatmeal an objective statement about reality?

3) Or is it not an objective statement about reality?

4) Would "I like oatmeal" be a true statement about reality, or would it be a false one, provided that I enjoy it when I consume it through my mouth?

Go ahead, give those a shot without contradicting yourself. You know you can't.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 2:37 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 9:47 am

If I like oatmeal, then that is true. Is it not?

You've made a category error.

I've said that epistemic subjectivism is false.

You've asked if aesthetic subjectivism is false.

You said nothing about "epistemic subjectivism" or "aesthetic subjectivism."

Yes, but I did.

I knew the key distinction, and was careful to make it, as you can see above; and you didn't even realize the distinction, which is why you made a category error. But you were asking an aesthetic question (what do I like) versus an epistemological one (how do we know).

I'll give you the answer.

The fact that you (subjectively, aesthetically) like oatmeal is objectively true...perhaps, if, in fact, Gary likes oatmeal. But I can't know (epistemologically) whether or not Gary likes oatmeal, or whether Gary is only saying Gary likes oatmeal, to make a point. Something will be objectively true, even in this case; and the fact that I can't know whether Gary is telling the truth or lying will not change the objective truth. It won't make the answer factually subjective, in other words. Whether or not Gary objectively likes oatmeal will remain true, whether or not I subjectively assent to it.

So my subjectivity is not determining the facts. The facts objectively remain. Reality will be what reality is. It cannot be other than "real." Even the invocation of the question "Is X real," presupposes the existence of a thing called "reality," to which the question can be alluding. If it did not, you could not even form the predication behind the question.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 4:18 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 4:04 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Aug 13, 2026 2:37 pm
You've made a category error.

I've said that epistemic subjectivism is false.

You've asked if aesthetic subjectivism is false.

You said nothing about "epistemic subjectivism" or "aesthetic subjectivism."

Yes, but I did.

I knew the key distinction, and was careful to make it, as you can see above; and you didn't even realize the distinction, which is why you made a category error. But you were asking an aesthetic question (what do I like) versus an epistemological one (how do we know).

I'll give you the answer.

The fact that you (subjectively, aesthetically) like oatmeal is objectively true...perhaps, if, in fact, Gary likes oatmeal. But I can't know (epistemologically) whether or not Gary likes oatmeal, or whether Gary is only saying Gary likes oatmeal, to make a point. Something will be objectively true, even in this case; and the fact that I can't know whether Gary is telling the truth or lying will not change the objective truth. It won't make the answer factually subjective, in other words. Whether or not Gary objectively likes oatmeal will remain true, whether or not I subjectively assent to it.

So my subjectivity is not determining the facts. The facts objectively remain. Reality will be what reality is. It cannot be other than "real." Even the invocation of the question "Is X real," presupposes the existence of a thing called "reality," to which the question can be alluding. If it did not, you could not even form the predication behind the question.

So you are saying that my subjective liking of oatmeal (something you may not share or comprehend in the same way I do) is an objective fact? So if I think murdering me is wrong, that cannot also be an objective fact? Or else if it is "subjective," then unlike the oatmeal situation, it's not true? Murder is wrong, cannot be an objective fact unless it's "grounded" in something? Is my liking oatmeal "grounded" in something? And if so, what is my liking of oatmeal "grounded" in?