Without getting into the details of this argument again, I think it is worth pointing out that one of the strange paradoxes of modern philosophy and aesthetics - both analytical and continental - is that the idea of 'reality' or the 'world', or various equivalents such as 'life' or 'human experience', are used over and over again, but seldom - if ever - are they defined or analyzed. Yet as even this brief little exchange highlights, they are among the most ambiguous and 'polysemic' (to use the jargon) words in the English language. So much for the 'analysis' of analytical philosophy!
DA On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 7:39 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
