Metaphysics: Theories of Reality

[ban3rg]

While we're all in the mood (and while the sun is still shining here in Ithaca) let me throw another question out there:

What do you guys think of reality? What does "real" mean? What makes "reality" real but our dreams not real? Are we all like in the Matrix, our brains are actually hooked up to some machine somewhere and receiving all this stimuli, but we think we're actually here in this world, walking around and doin our thing?

How do you know what's real? Are your senses your only means of understanding reality? Cuz our senses fool us all the time, optical illusions, not being able to make out what certain objects are in darkness, not being able to recognize what some MC is saying at a Bhangra comp, etc...

Personally I have no idea and will readily be convinced if some random man comes to me and confidently states that nothing around me is real and my brain is actually in a jar somewhere hooked up to lots of electrodes.

 

[Meistro]

Interesting that you brought this topic up Arjun. This question, even though metaphysics uses logic based on the meaning of concepts, rather than on analysis of empirical facts derived through human sense perception of the objective world, is one that may never be answered although it may seem quite simple, it is deeply complex. The key is to get past our common sense naive notions of what "it" is and get to what it REALLY is.

To add onto your inquiries, there are some other points to add on (with respects to metaphysics), such as; is there a God? Do humans have souls? do humans have free will or is their behaviour determined? what is the nature of the mind? is the mind a material substance? if not, does it exist? If it exists and is not material, how can it interact with the physical brain? Is there such a thing as consciousness or is consciousness just a name we have for behavioural states?

Aristotle is actually famous for conducting a deep metaphysical analysis in to the true nature of the soul. He asked what it really is. These "what is it" questions are rooted from Greek philosophy; what is the true nature of reality (metaphysics), what is the nature of knowledge (epistemology), what is meaning (philosophy of language). Meaning is huge when answering these questions as there are different ways in which intellectuals interpret common terms. The philosopher of language wants a logically perfect language that is capable of expressing reality in its true, exact form.

These are just my unorganized thoughts thrown together with regards to the topic. Might not make any sense, but yeah, very interesting topic. I personally do not doubt the existence of the soul or the presence of God due to my faith, nor do I believe they are meant to be explained. The rest of the "what is it" questions are definitely topics up for debate and will make you sweat a bit.

 

[Summy]

Interesting. Arjun is a joker, haha.

I always found discussions about metaphysics halirious, mostly in the university setting. I swear you can get your honours in philosophy, by three generic statements. Firstly, everything and their mother is a social construct. Love is a social construct, happiness is a social construct, social constructs themselves are social constructs.

Secondly, everything has to start with "existentially". Existentially, love in today's society is a social construct. Thirdly, right after existentially, you have to pause and throw in, a "ummm, you know", to give this impression of deep introspection. I would always be involved in discussions except these ones, because I would just sit back and watch the statments fly. The class would inevitable so impressed by the students understanding of the complex theory that in existentialism in today's world.

I think I subscribe to the dualism approach to mind and body the way I think it was decartes put forth. I think two substances do exist in the world, mental and physical. I think that this approach isnt as isolationist as everything is a giment of the mind, and there is no substance in the world. And it is not as radical as to say that the physical world is all that is real, because we have nothing else that can be substanially proven. Contrasting theories are defintely interesting to read though.

 

[ban3rg]

Haha I know what you mean Summy. I took a Philosophy class here last year and it was just like that. Some kids take it too seriously.

Anyway, yeah, our discussion of Descartes and then Leibniz's Monads and the discussion of primary and secondary qualities is what led me to ask this question. In the class we used to wonder, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it did it really make a sound?

Meistro you're response is actually very clear and doesn't seem thrown together at all. Nice summary. There's really no more to discuss on this topic - I wasn't looking for an answer obviously (there is none, our senses limit our knowledge, maybe I can do some major dhaan and attain a higher form of knowledge) but just your thoughts/ any leads/clues on this topic.

The thing with a lot of these ideas is that you can't live your life by them. For example, imagine if we all believed that nothing around us really real and everything is a figment of our imaginations, that our brains are actually in a jar somewhere receiving stimuli from electrodes. What effect would that have on our lifestyle? We wouldn't want to do anything anymore!

"Arjun, go study for your exam." "No, Mom, it's not real, nothing is real, I'm just going to chill and listen to RDB for the rest of my life."

Or if we ACTUALLY believed in "Carpe Diem" or "Live each day like it's your last, life is too short blah blah." How incredibly hard is it to live life in such a way.

"Arjun why do you go to school?" "Oh to get a job after I graduate." "Yeah, who knows if you will live that long, life is very transient." "True, true. screw everything. I'm going to pretend today is my last day. One moment, let me go empty my bank account and vacation in Fiji."

(Next Day) "Oh, I guess I'm still here. OK, so let's pretend THIS day is my last. Oh shit, all out of money."

 

[ban3rg]

Ok, ok, that was too extreme. I have a habit of reducing everything to their extremes or to some absurd example.

Clearly there is a balance. We can study, work, save money, plan for the future as much as we wish, we can't live each day like it's our last, but we can have a balance. We can study AND ALSO smell the roses once in a while. We can work hundred hours a week and STILL remember to tell those we love how much we like them, smile at people, shake hands, do something spontaneous, etc.

But it takes a really brave person to completely break out from this cycle. Everyone follows the same paradigm: work/study hard now, have some fun too, but really you are working towards retirement when you can finally begin a care-free life.

And it's true, many people don't get a chance to reach that care-free stage. They may have financial pressures making them work until they die, no retirement. Or they die prematurely (like the tragic instance of our brother Parma, may he rest in peace). And if you ask anyone they will agree that true happiness does not come from money or even from success and personal achievement, rather all the old people you ask will say they value family and being with those they love more than anyone else.

If that is the end goal, shouldn't our means of reaching this goal be somewhat different? Our "track" or course of action is always pre-professional education, professional work, and like, retirement.

I dunno, everyone has a different model for the perfect life. Bill Gates slogged and now he has a job he loves, he's not retired, but he gets a double whammy by being able to travel the world with his wife and work on philanthropic projects through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. He's probably truly happy, with the exception of when he has to put up with some BS from Steve Jobs and his accomplishments.