Hmm, doesn't it require thinking to come up with the unreal--the imagined?"I think, therefore I am." René Descartes
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is anything real?
- Thread starter Akivah
- Start date
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter if reality is "real" or "fake", it's still affecting us and we're still tied into it.
Nothing exists beyond what existence consists of.
But the thread is about reality, not existence.
Can something real not exist? Can something that exists not be real?
Of course. We have means like fiction just for that.
Although the concepts of them exist, and are real, the actual thing described in the concept does not exist and is not real.
As fiction they are required to be nothing more than their "concepts." You'd have a hard time convincing anyone that Darth Vadar was real, but no one having seen him in the theatre would deny Darth Vadar exists.
NobodyYouKnow
Misanthropist
Rene Descartes goes...'I think, therefore, I am'.
NYK goes...'I know, therefore, I am' (I think Socrates got in before me though).
Plato goes...'I think, therefore, I think'.
Shankaracharya goes...'I am, therefore I am'.
Buddha goes...'I think, therefore, the world is made'.
So, is anything 'real'? Everything only is as 'real' in the sense of our own definitions and limitations of what we all perceive as being our 'reality'.
Everything within the framework of matter and time is 'real' in relation and context to its environment, influencing it in some way, gross or subtle.
Within the confines and definitions of this perceptual reality, everything is real. When we step outside it, the lines begin to blur just a bit. lol
The simplest way to put it, is to describe it in/by comparison - everything is real....except for that which is not.
*where 'reality' becomes a context.
NYK goes...'I know, therefore, I am' (I think Socrates got in before me though).
Plato goes...'I think, therefore, I think'.
Shankaracharya goes...'I am, therefore I am'.
Buddha goes...'I think, therefore, the world is made'.
So, is anything 'real'? Everything only is as 'real' in the sense of our own definitions and limitations of what we all perceive as being our 'reality'.
Everything within the framework of matter and time is 'real' in relation and context to its environment, influencing it in some way, gross or subtle.
Within the confines and definitions of this perceptual reality, everything is real. When we step outside it, the lines begin to blur just a bit. lol
The simplest way to put it, is to describe it in/by comparison - everything is real....except for that which is not.
*where 'reality' becomes a context.
His character portrayed in the film exists, the actual Darth Vader does not. There are representations, models, concepts, ideas, etc. about something, however this does not mean they exist, only that those things pertaining to it exists.
Otherwise all atheists would have to say God exists because he is found in literature, as a concept, there are models of him, etc.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I like Willamena's illustration.
Darth Vader, while a fictitious character, had required a physical medium in order to bring him to "life".
In that respect, one could say Darth Vader is real in respect to the medium itself.
The perception of what is, and what is not real intertwines. Both descriptions in affirming whats not real and of whats real would be accurate, but also correct would be the acknowledgement of neither designation altogether.
Darth Vader, while a fictitious character, had required a physical medium in order to bring him to "life".
In that respect, one could say Darth Vader is real in respect to the medium itself.
The perception of what is, and what is not real intertwines. Both descriptions in affirming whats not real and of whats real would be accurate, but also correct would be the acknowledgement of neither designation altogether.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I see different levels of reality, there's the level that we as a mind body organism experiences, there's also different other realities that other organisms experience, all are reality to that living being. Then there's the source where all so called realties arise from, if there is such thing as a true reality it would have to be the source, god, consciousness or whatever label you want to attach to it.
But Darth Vader is a character in a film.
Some do. For many, that's what makes them atheists.
Agreed. There is no method or means for assessing that something exists objectively. You can posit the notion of an objective reality all you want, but such a notion ultimately rests on the subjective nature of human experience.
I think it is just semantics, no offense.
If something is not real, it can only exist by something that is real (for example a book is real, but never took place in real life, it never really happened. And so the book exists, but the event never really took place, the event never existed beyond the book that portrays it.
What is the purpose of fiction? Of film? Of theatre?
It serves many purposes, entertainment primarily.
Also, I believe this might have derailed the thread from its original topic, so here is a thread in which we can continue if that's alright by you
