Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Red_Dragon18 · Sep 28, 2004, 08:15 am

Tell me what realism is and give me an example!
Give me some feedback in the forums, people i want to hear what you're thinkin'!!!

Technosoul · Sep 28, 2004, 12:04 pm

I think (without getting into over-dimenstional theory) that nature is real, in other words, the natual environment is the "honest" reality that we can use to discern what is not real.

Where-as some of our man-made environments have seperated us from that basic reality called nature (non-developed land areas).

And so I would start off with that foundation in attempting to answer the question posted.

Technosoul.

orgaelin · Sep 28, 2004, 04:28 pm

Everything is relative, everything. Your 'reality' is your own.

Maybe.

Technosoul · Sep 28, 2004, 08:42 pm

Everything is relative, but relative to what? One can think "everything is relative to everything else".

However if you want to estabish a standard for realness, in order to see what not-real is relative too, then I suggest "nature".

Vee · Sep 28, 2004, 11:21 pm

I'm guessing this is really a topic about existentialism?

Technosoul · Sep 29, 2004, 08:54 am

Hi Vee - I am not yet sure if exitentialism is a real topic, what do you think?

Vee · Sep 30, 2004, 02:02 am

I think whatever is real to me is real

However it may not be real to you

Suburbanite · Sep 30, 2004, 04:23 am

existance is all that is real, and thus making all it contains real.

voyager · Sep 30, 2004, 10:26 am

Reality is not subjective. If you and I (ant the rest of humanity) are at a table looking at a bottle of wine, we can both agree that what we see is a bottle. If we were to open it and pour it's contence in to a glass we could conclude that what we see is wine. Next step is we both taste the liquid and agree it is wine then our reality, (along withe the rest of humanity)is the same.

If reality is subjective than nothing would get done, we would just spend our time arguing what we see.

westcoastdog · Oct 4, 2004, 11:56 pm

Science deals with reality. Every time you get on a jet, you are demonstrating confidence that scientists and engineers have got it right. As for all the rest--morality, beauty, taste, ethics--it's all relative. We may agree that the bottle contains wine, but we may disagree as to its quality.

Alive · Oct 6, 2004, 07:24 pm

Reality is what actually is. It is objective. We can comprehend reality through our senses. That two people observing the same object see approximately the same thing is evidence of objective reality.

Morality does not fall under evidently objective reality, as we cannot derive it from our sensual observations. It is not relative however- either what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, or right and wrong do not exist.

Relativist morality is false because humans are generally similar- just as two people can agree about the bottle of wine on the table, two people can agree that suffering is an unwanted feeling. If you think it is wrong for you to murder a person because life is valued; why is the life of someone who lives in some other culture less valued just because that culture values life less? Why should you care less about that person just because the people living with him do? And if that person's life is just as valuable as anyone who shares your moral beliefs, it is just as wrong for someone else to murder than person as it would be for you to do so.

Disagreement about something doesn't make it relative. Scientists can disagree about something, and new evidence can come up that proves one side correct and the other incorrect. We can disagree on moral topics without having to believe that morality is relative.

rcne · Oct 6, 2004, 09:44 pm

Simplistic terms

I'm real - you're not.

Couldn't resist.

The only proof I have that I'm real is that 'I AM'. All other is subjective until I experience it directly.

This probably didn't help - I'll stick to the first statement.

rcne · Oct 6, 2004, 09:45 pm

Simplistic terms

I'm real - you're not.

Sorry I couldn't resist.

The only proof I have that I'm real is that 'I AM'. All other is subjective until I experience it directly.

This probably didn't help - I'll stick to the first statement.

Vee · Oct 6, 2004, 10:19 pm

your not the first to say it

cogito ergo sum

I think therefore I am

Starboy · Oct 6, 2004, 10:34 pm

Hmmm realism.... Not quite sure what to make of the term. I am sure that some philosopher somewhere has got a definition for it. In any case the discussion usually digresses to the point where it is asserted that there are two kinds of reality, subjective and objective reality. My take is that that all we can directly experience is subjective reality. That our take on objective reality is only a synthesis of two or more subjective views that have compared notes and did their level best to be honest and get their stories strait. This approach does assume that there is such a thing as objective reality, just that there is no way to know for sure if one is observing it completely, or even observing it at all. The experimental evidence that there is an objective reality is that several subjective observers separated widely in space and time can all observe what appears by their descriptions to be pretty much the same thing. This occurs in science all the time with two or more researchers making similar discoveries while being completely unawares of the others work. Synthesized objective reality is essentially how science is conducted. Science also applies one other principle in its exploration and explanation of reality. That is brutal honesty. The honestly to admit that your pet take on reality could be wrong and to consider conflicting accounts and reassess your pet explanations if they cannot be reconciled with what appears to be reliable accounts and what is reliably known about reality. Scientific objective reality is a sticky business because science does allow for competing explanations of reality. But as more is learned by researchers the field is winnowed down until there is one or no choices left. And as always, even the widely accepted explanations can still be considered for revision or rejections based on new discoveries or explanations. The other thing to remember about science is that the explanation with the most power to making predictions of phenomena before the fact is the most favored (this is why most scientists don’t care much for religion, it is only good at predicting things after the fact). Scientists are at heart explorers and anything that will give them new territories to explore is highly prized. After all, you don't usually get the Nobel Prize for rediscovering the same old stuff. It goes to the new discoveries. Not sure if this is what you meant by realism but if there is any human activity that is considered expert on the real it would have to be science. Last time I checked philosophers and priests are no longer called upon to determine if something is real. In this day and age science is the yardstick of reality.

Starboy

Section 8 · Oct 7, 2004, 01:13 am

Realism is subjective, because there is always the minute possibillity that our sense are in fact lying to us, part of a grand cerebral deception if you will. Therefore, nothing can be completely real, or completely anything.

Alive · Oct 7, 2004, 11:38 am

Reality is not defined by observation. Just because our senses can be lying to us does not mean that reality is subjective. It just means that we can not be certain we are viewing the objective reality.

Starboy · Oct 7, 2004, 11:43 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Alive,
Reality is not defined by observation. Just because our senses can be lying to us does not mean that reality is subjective. It just means that we can not be certain we are viewing the objective reality.

That's a good point. Also no matter what anyone may say about there being no objective reality people certainly do act as if there were an objective reality by doing such things as making wills, building structures intended to stand long after they are dead, create governments for future generations and so on. There is a tacit recognition that our minds are not reality but that we as creatures with minds are embedded in reality and that reality will continue to exist long after our minds have ceased to function.

Starboy

Suburbanite · Oct 10, 2004, 06:30 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Section 8,
Realism is subjective, because there is always the minute possibillity that our sense are in fact lying to us, part of a grand cerebral deception if you will. Therefore, nothing can be completely real, or completely anything.

So the only thing that is true is that nothing is true... logic would have a problem with that.

Suburbanite · Oct 10, 2004, 06:36 am

Quote:

Originally posted by Alive,
Reality is not defined by observation. Just because our senses can be lying to us does not mean that reality is subjective. It just means that we can not be certain we are viewing the objective reality.

Reality is certainly defined by observation; all of it is simply not observable though. Reality is not subjective, as it is not a product of the mind, the mind is a product of it, so in that sense you're correct. Reality and truth are synonyms in most philosophical contexts. Sartre says "existence rules and precedes essence" simply explaining that what encompasses existence tramples and creates any concept of essence perceivable, and thus itself is the giver of Truth not the product of it. Observation, through the senses or through the processes of the mind are reality as they are what existence has put before you.

Sep 28, 2004, 08:15 am	#1 (permalink) (top)
Red_Dragon18 Molten Ash Location: Big Brown Box alley street Posts: 22	Tell me what realism is and give me an example! Give me some feedback in the forums, people i want to hear what you're thinkin'!!! [ I am a proud "debater" but are willingto compromise with all but never step down from a challenge!!

Sep 28, 2004, 04:28 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
orgaelin Igneous Magma Location: Midlands UK Posts: 720	Everything is relative, everything. Your 'reality' is your own. Maybe. "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

Sep 28, 2004, 11:21 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Vee Igneous Magma Posts: 358	I'm guessing this is really a topic about existentialism? Australian Political Discussion Site Aussies: Welcome to the Rudd Regime Yanks: Welcome to Hell Now Purgatory. Others: G'day mate.

Sep 30, 2004, 02:02 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Vee Igneous Magma Posts: 358	I think whatever is real to me is real However it may not be real to you Australian Political Discussion Site Aussies: Welcome to the Rudd Regime Yanks: Welcome to Hell Now Purgatory. Others: G'day mate.

Oct 6, 2004, 09:44 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	Simplistic terms I'm real - you're not. Couldn't resist. The only proof I have that I'm real is that 'I AM'. All other is subjective until I experience it directly. This probably didn't help - I'll stick to the first statement. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Sep 28, 2004, 12:04 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	I think (without getting into over-dimenstional theory) that nature is real, in other words, the natual environment is the "honest" reality that we can use to discern what is not real. Where-as some of our man-made environments have seperated us from that basic reality called nature (non-developed land areas). And so I would start off with that foundation in attempting to answer the question posted. Technosoul.

Sep 28, 2004, 08:42 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Everything is relative, but relative to what? One can think "everything is relative to everything else". However if you want to estabish a standard for realness, in order to see what not-real is relative too, then I suggest "nature".

Sep 29, 2004, 08:54 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Technosoul Volcanic Erupter Posts: 8,663	Hi Vee - I am not yet sure if exitentialism is a real topic, what do you think?

Sep 30, 2004, 04:23 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Suburbanite BANNED Location: Los Angeles Posts: 3,203	existance is all that is real, and thus making all it contains real.

Sep 30, 2004, 10:26 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
voyager Molten Ash Location: Michigan Posts: 103	Reality is not subjective. If you and I (ant the rest of humanity) are at a table looking at a bottle of wine, we can both agree that what we see is a bottle. If we were to open it and pour it's contence in to a glass we could conclude that what we see is wine. Next step is we both taste the liquid and agree it is wine then our reality, (along withe the rest of humanity)is the same. If reality is subjective than nothing would get done, we would just spend our time arguing what we see.

Oct 4, 2004, 11:56 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
westcoastdog Igneous Magma Posts: 416	Science deals with reality. Every time you get on a jet, you are demonstrating confidence that scientists and engineers have got it right. As for all the rest--morality, beauty, taste, ethics--it's all relative. We may agree that the bottle contains wine, but we may disagree as to its quality.

Oct 6, 2004, 07:24 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
Alive Human Posts: 679	Reality is what actually is. It is objective. We can comprehend reality through our senses. That two people observing the same object see approximately the same thing is evidence of objective reality. Morality does not fall under evidently objective reality, as we cannot derive it from our sensual observations. It is not relative however- either what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong, or right and wrong do not exist. Relativist morality is false because humans are generally similar- just as two people can agree about the bottle of wine on the table, two people can agree that suffering is an unwanted feeling. If you think it is wrong for you to murder a person because life is valued; why is the life of someone who lives in some other culture less valued just because that culture values life less? Why should you care less about that person just because the people living with him do? And if that person's life is just as valuable as anyone who shares your moral beliefs, it is just as wrong for someone else to murder than person as it would be for you to do so. Disagreement about something doesn't make it relative. Scientists can disagree about something, and new evidence can come up that proves one side correct and the other incorrect. We can disagree on moral topics without having to believe that morality is relative.

Oct 6, 2004, 09:45 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
rcne Moderator/nobody Posts: 1,566	Simplistic terms I'm real - you're not. Sorry I couldn't resist. The only proof I have that I'm real is that 'I AM'. All other is subjective until I experience it directly. This probably didn't help - I'll stick to the first statement. Live Long and Prosper (Genetics and Capitalism)

Oct 6, 2004, 10:19 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Vee Igneous Magma Posts: 358	your not the first to say it cogito ergo sum I think therefore I am Australian Political Discussion Site Aussies: Welcome to the Rudd Regime Yanks: Welcome to Hell Now Purgatory. Others: G'day mate.

Oct 6, 2004, 10:34 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
Starboy BANNED: Repeated insults Posts: 4,828	Hmmm realism.... Not quite sure what to make of the term. I am sure that some philosopher somewhere has got a definition for it. In any case the discussion usually digresses to the point where it is asserted that there are two kinds of reality, subjective and objective reality. My take is that that all we can directly experience is subjective reality. That our take on objective reality is only a synthesis of two or more subjective views that have compared notes and did their level best to be honest and get their stories strait. This approach does assume that there is such a thing as objective reality, just that there is no way to know for sure if one is observing it completely, or even observing it at all. The experimental evidence that there is an objective reality is that several subjective observers separated widely in space and time can all observe what appears by their descriptions to be pretty much the same thing. This occurs in science all the time with two or more researchers making similar discoveries while being completely unawares of the others work. Synthesized objective reality is essentially how science is conducted. Science also applies one other principle in its exploration and explanation of reality. That is brutal honesty. The honestly to admit that your pet take on reality could be wrong and to consider conflicting accounts and reassess your pet explanations if they cannot be reconciled with what appears to be reliable accounts and what is reliably known about reality. Scientific objective reality is a sticky business because science does allow for competing explanations of reality. But as more is learned by researchers the field is winnowed down until there is one or no choices left. And as always, even the widely accepted explanations can still be considered for revision or rejections based on new discoveries or explanations. The other thing to remember about science is that the explanation with the most power to making predictions of phenomena before the fact is the most favored (this is why most scientists don’t care much for religion, it is only good at predicting things after the fact). Scientists are at heart explorers and anything that will give them new territories to explore is highly prized. After all, you don't usually get the Nobel Prize for rediscovering the same old stuff. It goes to the new discoveries. Not sure if this is what you meant by realism but if there is any human activity that is considered expert on the real it would have to be science. Last time I checked philosophers and priests are no longer called upon to determine if something is real. In this day and age science is the yardstick of reality. Starboy

Oct 7, 2004, 01:13 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	Realism is subjective, because there is always the minute possibillity that our sense are in fact lying to us, part of a grand cerebral deception if you will. Therefore, nothing can be completely real, or completely anything.

Oct 7, 2004, 11:38 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Alive Human Posts: 679	Reality is not defined by observation. Just because our senses can be lying to us does not mean that reality is subjective. It just means that we can not be certain we are viewing the objective reality.