how do i reality

i can understand how and why its taken for granted....but what i cant see is how it would be hard to realize the eventuality of it. so just a simple request from me this time....finish the sentence (because i couldnt)

reality is

(and no dictionarys)

 

is truth...

 

honest...

 

...the field of things which we consider real?

I dunno, I guess it's the space we inhabit, that which we believe proven to exist plus that which we feel it likely to expect to exist, as perceived through the senses we have at our control, be they our own or those of machines which we then interpret.

 

what actually is instead of what we perceive it to be. Something we therefore may sometimes be in touch with, but never know for sure.

 

so what if i said to you.......

a "label", to grasp reality?? -honest -true??....how intellectually unethical

either it is or it isnt

reality is, truth is, honesty is, but its all reality....its all the same thing

 

Labels aren't intellectually unethical, unless I missed the memo. What's wrong with giving something a name if it doesn't have one?

 

i should have said descriptive term....but still

 

reality is what you perceive it to be. thus it is what you make of it

 

you are just....knee deep in irony lol

edit: i completely understand, but isnt that a bit selfish (now wer both in it)

 

Maybe. I think "reality" is kind of like an algebra value. We know that it's something, we're just trying to figure out by its relationship to other things what that something is. It doesn't matter if the value of x turns out not to be the absolute definitive epitome of x-ness. We don't find out that n = 5 and have a blazing row about whether it should've been called m instead.

OK, it's a simplified argument, but I'm not sure I understand what's being asked. The word suits until we know more about what we're dealing with. Chances are that, by then, we'll have developed a more specialist vocabulary for dealing the real and (presumably) the unreal and maybe-real, some of which will filter through into layman's English. It is simply that, in the meantime, we have to call it something.

But yeah, in describing it, I don't think you're going to get much more than "that which is considered real". Someone probably could give you a long meandering essay about subjectivity and spiritualism and god knows what else, but they'd be at best speculating based on little reliable data, and most likely just blowing smoke.

 

To define what reality is we have to start with a given that we in fact are real. I know there is no logical way to prove this, but the more I observe this universe the more I come to the conclusion that this world is always one step beyond logic.

So using the given that we are real, we can define real as the things we can interact with. Anything that affects us or that we can affect must be real, for I don’t think that we can jump the gap between real and unreal. And of course by this definition all feelings, emotions and ideas are very real, for they tend to shape us much more than the physical forces of the universe.

But who knows, I may be completely wrong. The world would be so boring if we knew exactly what was going on…

 

This is kind of what I mean earlier: "real", "reality", etc., are just words we use for the state of things as we know it. We're still defining the word, so it's not so rigid that it would make sense for someone to say that "maybe we're not real". "Real" is our word for what we are, so there's not only no reason to worry that we're not real, I think it'd be impossible for us not to be real.

 

Cogito, ergo sum.....noone uses logic these days anyways......lawl

that solely depends on who is writing the statement

 

Am I alone in thinking that "I think therefore I am" is a bit arse-backwards? Shouldn't it be "I am, therefore I think"?

...I don't know that it does, actually?

 

its just a shot at a logical reasoning for existence....besides....inanimate objects dont reason

 

Are you sure?

 

I guess it sounds better than "I am because I say so", but things that don't think exist, don't they? Surely if they can't think they shouldn't be?

 

Reality is an opinion.

 

Reality may be the strength or weakness of what you actualize for the virtue of doing in the world. Reality may be the mental experience of the world; and thus nothing you can effect. But how does it happen one has a They for that deniably entrenched activity which books can introduce our vocation into for Man?

There was this show on television which protrayed the imposition of what They do (I guess I never asked for it to be the reality of nature interacting with man) as madness. All these utilities, these conveniences by fact of my personal judgment for accessing other people's minds for what they could help for the useless world of nothing new invented.

But 'They' being is actualized by the being in the world of my belonging to, I guess, something progressive. I actually am supposed to possibilize the time of my ideal thoughts for possibility. They possibilize their own actions for the information of what is going on I got. Do they? But believing as we do to get out of the rut of doing nobody no good, we really have one's role to play, we really have this information to make ourselves good about.

Reality is an opinion for what Self can be to the world, or reality is truly selfless for the reason of the doing in duplication of other people's actions in the world.