I want to take another shot at indicting the use of 'real' and 'reality' in
philosophy, not because there is in some way an inherent "wrongness" to them,
but because they invite two different minds to entertain two different notions
of the same word in the same discussion, thus dooming the discussion to
confusion and fruitlessness.
I sympathize with the layman who says the non-notional iron structure in
Paris that we call the Eiffel Tower has a "reality" that Santa Claus's factory
at
the North Pole does not.
Derek would reply, "Not to a child, it doesn't -- in particular a child who
believes in Santa Claus and never heard of the Eiffel Tower. To him, Santa
Claus's factory is more real than the Eiffel Tower."
We understand what Derek is about with this statement. It's ridiculous to say
the Eiffel Tower is more "real" to the child. The child's notion of that
factory is more vivid, seizing, preoccupying, pleasurable. Indeed, he has no
notion whatever of the Eiffel Tower. To go even further, we might say the Tower
has
no "reality" for the child at all.
And yet we're inclined to agree with the layman that the Tower is "real" in a
sense in which the factory is "not real".
What is happening here is that the layman and Derek are entertaining two
different notions of "real/reality". When the layman says something is 'real'
he
means it's not something solely in a person's mind, it is, so to speak, an
entity in the non-notional world -- the "real world".
Derek could reply that notions are also entities, and to say they are not
"real" is absurd. He conveys they have degrees of reality in a mind -- the more
"vivid, seizing, etc" they are -- i.e. the more of a "factor" in the person's
life -- the more justified we are in calling them more "real" for him.
The layman might say, "Derek, if you think Santa's factory is real, you're a
little loony."
Derek might answer, "If you can't see Santa's factory is more real to a child
than is a Tower she's never seen and never heard of, you don't understand
anything about people. A mother's concern for her sick child may be only in
her
mind, but surely it's more real to her than some non-notional rock in the
Andes that neither she nor anyone has ever seen."
Derek will continue to feel an entity's "reality" in a person's life is
measured by how much of factor it is in the person's life -- which allows that
many
non-notional entities -- like money or a cancer -- can be very "real" to a
person.
The layman will continue to feel that the child's fantasy of Santa's factory
is not Santa's factory; that, though we may concede such notions are entities,
they are notional entities, and their "reality" as notions is quite different
from the reality of non-notional things like the real Eiffel Tower in Paris.
The layman and Derek could thus argue all day, with each believing he is
right and the other guy wrong. But neither is right or wrong. Their notions are
merely different. And for either to insist that his notion IS the RIGHT one --
that WOULD be wrong, because there is no "THE definition/'meaning'" for either
word -- 'real' or 'reality' (or for ANY word). Still, they will so insist in
their own minds. Their argument will at base be solely a wrestling match about
which is the right way to use the words -- when there is no single right way.
Arguments can be fruitful when the disputants agree on the notions to be
entertained with given words. Since I suspect that's never going to happen with
the words 'real' and 'reality' -- often because the disputants don't realize
their basic notions are different -- I maintain we should simply not use them
in
philosophy discussions.
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
