Language and Reality (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, April 09, 2011, 13:36 (4773 days ago) @ BBella

BBELLA: There is a part of reality that exists on the unmeasurable spiritual or ethereal level that can only be comprehended and observed by that same level of reality that exists within us: the mind. [...]-So to respect our inability to measure where the beginning and end of the different aspects of reality is, it would seem that a line would have to be drawn in the sand as an arbitrary agreement between two people to have a simple discussion about reality.
 
One example of a simple but near useless boundary (unless agreed upon) might be an agreement of that which can be touched and that which can't be. Or that which can be seen by the eye (including microscope) and that which can't be, etc. Other than boundaries agreed upon like this, it would seem to me discussion's about reality and language can go nowhere but round and round.-I couldn't agree more, and many of our discussions are indeed about drawing boundaries and finding definitions. On the epistemological thread, we established right from the start that on one level "it could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge", and if we took that approach, there would be no further discussion. One can say, in similar vein, that although we may assume there is such a thing as objective reality, we subjective humans can never know it. Once more, end of discussion. In both cases, my plea is for a commonsense approach. As you say, we have to draw lines in the sand. So let me make a tentative beginning:-1)	No discussion of "reality" can take place without the parties agreeing beforehand to a definition of their terms.
 
2)	Whatever is perceived by our senses and expressed by our language may or may not be objectively true. The likelihood of its being true will increase according to the breadth of consensus among those who are aware of it, but absolute truth is unknowable.-3)	Whatever is formulated by our non-sensual faculties (e.g. intellect, emotions, intuition) varies in kind from extreme subjectivity (e.g. love) to aspiring objectivity (e.g. philosophy). In most cases, no consensus is possible, and the degree of "truth" can only be assessed by each individual, often depending on that individual's definition of reality.-Bearing in mind all the above, plus the need to combine the philosophical and the commonsense approaches to the question, let me offer my own individual (and tentative) definition: -What is believed by each individual to exist (a) independently of humans and (b) because of humans.-N.B. According to this definition, reality (subjective)is not synonymous with truth (objective). It can therefore solve the puzzle I set Tony: God is real for a theist (see 3). It can also remove commonsense anomalies and linguistic confusion over philosophical questions such as the existence/non-existence of "nothing", "time", "darkness", the discussion of which will then centre on whether this form of reality is type (a) or type (b).
 
But I'm feeling my way here! The idea is to avoid BBella's merry-go-round. Or is it unavoidable?