What does it mean to say that X is real, or not real?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » What does it mean to say that X is real, or not real?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 10:01 am
Toy ducks are not real ducks. But toy ducks are real toys. Hallucinations are not real, but Macbeth's hallucination of a dagger in Shakespeares play was a real hallucination (in the play). What does the adjective, "real", mean?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:13 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101501 wrote:
Toy ducks are not real ducks. But toy ducks are real toys. Hallucinations are not real, but Macbeth's hallucination of a dagger in Shakespeares play was a real hallucination (in the play). What does the adjective, "real", mean?


I suppose that for something to be real, it must be something that is available to the senses in one form or another. A hallucination, while not real to an outside observer, is a real hallucination to the individual experiencing the hallucination, and as such is treated as a real experience.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:15 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;101560 wrote:
I suppose that for something to be real, it must be something that is available to the senses in one form or another. A hallucination, while not real to an outside observer, is a real hallucination to the individual experiencing the hallucination, and as such is treated as a real experience.


But hallucinations are not real, and yet they are still "available to the senses", aren't they?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:22 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;101562 wrote:
But hallucinations are not real, and yet they are still "available to the senses", aren't they?


And toy ducks are not real ducks, but I can see them on the shelves of the toy stores. But I don't think that we see or hear hallucinations. We have hallucinations.
And, don't some people have real hallucinations? They are not pretending to have them. Maybe we should distinguish between the contents of the hallucinations, and the hallucinations themselves. The dagger Macbeth hallucinated was not real. But his hallucination was real enough.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:29 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101565 wrote:
And toy ducks are not real ducks, but I can see them on the shelves of the toy stores. But I don't think that we see or hear hallucinations. We have hallucinations.
And, don't some people have real hallucinations? They are not pretending to have them. Maybe we should distinguish between the contents of the hallucinations, and the hallucinations themselves. The dagger Macbeth hallucinated was not real. But his hallucination was real enough.


When we say toy ducks are not real ducks, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". We are clearly not questioning the toy duck's existence by calling it fake.

When speaking of hallucinations we are using "real" to mean, "being or occuring in fact or actuality; not imaginary".

If one were to say, "But his hallucination was real enough", one would simply be saying that whomever's experience was authenic, or genuine. That is, he or she wasn't faking the hallucination (like a child may do, for instance). But we all know that hallucinations are not real, but rather that the experience of having an hallucination can be (again, using different notions of "real").
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:33 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101565 wrote:
And toy ducks are not real ducks, but I can see them on the shelves of the toy stores. But I don't think that we see or hear hallucinations. We have hallucinations.
And, don't some people have real hallucinations? They are not pretending to have them. Maybe we should distinguish between the contents of the hallucinations, and the hallucinations themselves. The dagger Macbeth hallucinated was not real. But his hallucination was real enough.


This is just the thought I was going to post, that there is a difference between the contents of hallucinations, and hallucinations.

And agreed, we don't see or hear hallucinations, but rather have hallucinations . . . but when we're having hallucinations we hear and see things that aren't real.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 12:37 PM ----------

TickTockMan;101570 wrote:
. . . but when we're having hallucinations we hear and see things that aren't real.


Just as I hit "post" I realized that I was in error when I stated this . . . .
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:37 pm
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan;101570 wrote:
This is just the thought I was going to post, that there is a difference between the contents of hallucinations, and hallucinations.

And agreed, we don't see or hear hallucinations, but rather have hallucinations . . . but when we're having hallucinations we hear and see things that aren't real.


It may seem to us that we see or hear what is not real. Asin Joan of Arc.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 02:46 PM ----------

Zetherin;101569 wrote:
When we say toy ducks are not real ducks, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". We are clearly not questioning the toy duck's existence by calling it fake.

When speaking of hallucinations we are using "real" to mean, "being or occuring in fact or actuality; not imaginary".

If one were to say, "But his hallucination was real enough", one would simply be saying that whomever's experience was authenic, or genuine. That is, he or she wasn't faking the hallucination (like a child may do, for instance). But we all know that hallucinations are not real, but rather that the experience of having an hallucination can be (again, using different notions of "real").


"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying the suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that it deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:52 pm
@kennethamy,
Just as effects contain a ratio of root cause, so does the range of any extension of potential energy.

Maslow modeled this in idea-to-actualized hierarchical scale. Platonic Form to current transformational genomics and behavioral sciences, evolve the same foundational physics.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 01:58 pm
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;101580 wrote:
Just as effects contain a ratio of root cause, so does the range of any extension of potential energy.

Maslow modeled this in idea-to-actualized hierarchical scale. Platonic Form to current transformational genomics and behavioral sciences, evolve the same foundational physics.


Are you sure you are on the right thread, or right forum?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 02:01 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy wrote:
"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying and suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that is deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.


I don't see how any of this makes "real" or "unreal" tough words. What part is tough to you?

"Not a real toy duck", makes sense. It means that the toy duck is not authentic, according to whatever standards for authenticity there are for toy ducks.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 02:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101573 wrote:
It may seem to us that we see or hear what is not real. Asin Joan of Arc.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 02:46 PM ----------



"Real" and "unreal" are tough words. J.L. Austin writes that it is "unreal" that "wears the pants". He means by that that we say of something that it is real only when we are denying that something is not real. When we assert that is a "real diamond", we are not saying it is some kind of extra-special diamond, we are simply saying it is a diamond, and denying and suggestion that the diamond is fake in any way. That is, that is deviates from being a normal diamond. We are not saying that the stone has some extra property that makes it real. A toy duck is not a real duck, which is to say, it is not a duck. It is a "deviant" duck. Of course a fake toy duck (maybe made of paper instead of wood) is a "deviant" toy duck. Not a real toy duck.


"I hallucinated a swarm of bats."
Swarms of bats are real.
I just didn't see a real swarm of bats.

Fake diamonds are real.
They're just not real diamonds.

A fake wooden duck made of paper would be a fake duck made out of paper designed to look like like a duck made of wood. Then again, at the risk of goofiness, maybe a fake toy duck is a real duck pretending to be a toy . . .

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 01:10 PM ----------

Zetherin;101584 wrote:


"Not a real toy duck", makes sense. It means that the toy duck is not authentic, according to whatever standards for authenticity there are for toy ducks.


I don't think this is quite correct, as it lacks specificity to say this.

One would have to say something like "this is not a real toy duck from the 17th century," for standards of authenticity to apply.

In other words, the toy duck is still a real toy duck, it's just not a real antique toy duck. Similar fakes are often revealed to people on "Antiques Roadshow."
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 02:16 pm
@kennethamy,
TickTockMan wrote:
I don't think this is quite correct, as it lacks specificity to say this.

One would have to say something like "this is not a real toy duck from the 17th century," for standards of authenticity to apply.

In other words, the toy duck is still a real toy duck, it's just not a real antique toy duck. Similar fakes are often revealed to people on "Antiques Roadshow."

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.

What do you think the phrase, "Not a real toy duck", would mean then? Here, I would think, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". Generally speaking, when we apply the descriptor "authenic" to an object, we are referring to standards which make the object "authenic". For instance, I could say this is not a real yankees baseball cap if it does not have X logo and I would mean it's not an authenic yankees baseball cap (here I may also be referring to quality when I say "genuine" or "authentic"). I'm obviously not debating the cap's existence, though.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 02:56 pm
@Zetherin,
Let's clarify what we mean when we say that something is real, because there are clearly different contexts in which the word can be used. When I say that something is real I mean that it is true, actual, and not alleged or ideal. When I speak of reality, I am speaking of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike and unwilled relations in space-time.

Hallucinations in themselves are real experiences that some people have, but the experience isn't a true representation of reality.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:02 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin;101590 wrote:
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean.

What do you think the phrase, "Not a real toy duck", would mean then? Here, I would think, we are using "real" as a synonym for "genuine" or "authentic". Generally speaking, when we apply the descriptor "authenic" to an object, we are referring to standards which make the object "authenic". For instance, I could say this is not a real yankees baseball cap if it does not have X logo and I would mean it's not an authenic yankees baseball cap (here I may also be referring to quality when I say "genuine" or "authentic"). I'm obviously not debating the cap's existence, though.


I suppose "Not a real toy duck" would mean "an imaginary toy duck".

In the example I used, I would mean, "A toy duck that is not really from the 17th century."
I can see how the syntax of "not a real toy duck from the 17th century" could lead to confusion though. I'm not sure that even "genuine" or "authentic" really fit the bill either.

If I was in the business of manufacturing baseball memorabilia, would I be lying if I said I make "Authentic reproductions of New York Yankees baseball caps"? I think I could even say they are genuine, and still be telling the truth.

Authentic reproductions of X are real.
They're just not real X.

This is why I have to agree with kennethamy when he noted the "real" and "unreal" are tough words . . .

Then we have the whole issue of simulacras as described by Baudrillard to mix things up even more.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:16 pm
@kennethamy,
I think we ought to note the difference between placing the adjective "real" before the substantive it qualifies, and after the substantive it qualifies. A real X is just not a deviant X (a real diamond is just not a paste diamond). But to say that this X is real is to deny that it is imaginary or hallucinatory. But, "real" is a "negative" term. It means not fake (deviant) or not imaginary. It is not a positive term.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 05:18 PM ----------

hue-man;101597 wrote:
Let's clarify what we mean when we say that something is real, because there are clearly different contexts in which the word can be used. When I say that something is real I mean that it is true, actual, and not alleged or ideal. When I speak of reality, I am speaking of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike and unwilled relations in space-time.

Hallucinations in themselves are real experiences that some people have, but the experience isn't a true representation of reality.


That is a special view of what reality is. Plato did not have such a view, and neither did other philosophers, or, for that matter, many mathematicians.
 
ValueRanger
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:22 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101583 wrote:
Are you sure you are on the right thread, or right forum?

Did you go to the link "foundational physics"?

Or are you that bent on suppressing higher value addition here?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:34 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101608 wrote:
That is a special view of what reality is. Plato did not have such a view, and neither did other philosophers, or, for that matter, many mathematicians.


So reality doesn't ultimately consist of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike relations in space-time? Reality isn't everything that exists?
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:50 pm
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;101612 wrote:
Did you go to the link "foundational physics"?

Or are you that bent on suppressing higher value addition here?


What in the world are you talking about, and how is it relevant to what it means to say X is real or not real?
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 04:58 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;101608 wrote:
I think we ought to note the difference between placing the adjective "real" before the substantive it qualifies, and after the substantive it qualifies. A real X is just not a deviant X (a real diamond is just not a paste diamond). But to say that this X is real is to deny that it is imaginary or hallucinatory. But, "real" is a "negative" term. It means not fake (deviant) or not imaginary. It is not a positive term.


This is interesting.

A)"This is a real duck"
has a different meaning than
B)"This duck is real."

I've recently been reading about how Russell made two distinctions of types of knowledge: Knowledge as acquaintance, and knowledge as description (which he split into two sub-categories: definite descriptions and indefinite descriptions).

This seems relevant to what we're talking about here, as it seems to me that we are talking about the knowledge of reality, or what is real.

Again, all seems to circle back into the distinction between what we know, and how we know it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2009 05:56 pm
@ValueRanger,
ValueRanger;101612 wrote:
Did you go to the link "foundational physics"?

Or are you that bent on suppressing higher value addition here?


I am not bent at all. I am standing up straight.

---------- Post added 11-03-2009 at 07:00 PM ----------

hue-man;101615 wrote:
So reality doesn't ultimately consist of matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike relations in space-time? Reality isn't everything that exists?


Reality is everything that exists, But. matter, energy, and their fundamentally lawlike relations in space-time isn't all that exists. For instance, the number three exists.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Metaphysics
  3. » What does it mean to say that X is real, or not real?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/15/2024 at 02:44:07