Alan D
Group: Members
Posts: 3670
Joined: Aug. 2004 |
 |
Posted: Mar. 08 2011, 04:41 |
 |
| Quote (Ugo @ Mar. 07 2011, 22:38) | | My question was to give a definition of what is real - of what is reality made of. And none of you, so far, actually answered it. |
But that, as nightspore rightly says, is because although the question looks answerable enough, we can't make any headway until we all agree on the meaning of the word 'real'. And philosophers don't agree about that.
The question is thousands of years old, but we might take a couple of examples to illustrate the problem:
1. We'd have to consider the notion, surprisingly widely held today, that the only reliable information we have about the nature of reality comes through scientific enquiry. If you think that's correct, then the answer to your question presumably lies in that direction (though many people wouldn't accept the basic premise).
2. Given the problem about defining words adequately, there are those who would say that the very question contains a fundamental misconception; that our primary concern is with unraveling the meaning of the language we use. (But there are those who'd say that our relation with 'reality' extends beyond language.)
One problem is that invariably these approaches exclude alternative views. Scientism, by its very nature, doesn't acknowledge the reality of other forms of acquiring knowledge about the world. The philosopher of language thinks it's absurd to discuss any possible 'meaning' conveyed by any means other than through language.
The upshot is that one can do no more than read the various philosophers who've tackled these issues, and take your pick. Or reserve judgement. Or say 'a plague on all their houses', and get back to playing Tr3s Lunas.
|
