That poses an interesting question, can we define a concrete object without having an abstract theory of how to define it first? It seems definitions themselves require a theory as description of what encompasses that object. And if such quantities like temperature, can be considered objects, as theories evolved the definition of temperature has changed.

Are you suggesting that an object is a theory? Makes sense to me.

Why would anyone believe that because he, or someone else, cannot tell the difference between what is real, and what is fake, that there is no difference, is something I don't understand. He would be making his own ignorance into a standard for others.

It's not that there is no difference, but rather a question about what the word "real" means, what "reality" is made of. Is "justice" real? Is "love" real? Have you ever had a memory and were in doubt whether it was a memory of a dream or a "real" experience? Are dreams unreal because they are private? Is "reality" defined by objectivity? But what is objectivity founded upon? We've riffed on this before, of course, but this thread caught my eye.
Is appearance versus reality merely a practical distinction?

Dreams are not real not because they are private (whatever you mean by that) but because although the dream did occur, their contents did not.

Well, I say the contents did occur. After all, if there is no afterlife, then all of life is a dream, although much longer.

I would say that life is justified by feeling (happiness, etc.). Does this occur, if no one can see it directly? Perhaps you see my point. Much that matters to us as individuals is not directly visible, measurable.

Therefore appearance and reality are, in my view, practical distinctions.

Well, this hinges on "occur." Seriously, I'd like to know what you have to say on the essence of the matter. Surely you understand me. Let's not waste time on the terms. Lord knows, we're both smart enough to grasp what the other is saying. Yes?

If you feel that way, god bless ye!

Ic, I guess what she is trying to get across is Plato and Descartes' opinions on reality gaps-through appearance and reality. She has used some movies such as the Matrix so sort of illustrate her point. But, I have missed a lot of class and can't really grasp the concept. She uses the word Bridge, is there a gap between appearance and reality and if so, how can it be bridged. Could someone provide an example of that? All of the former examples you guys posted I understand, but where then does the argument come into play.

You know how it be. Words in context. It's a crystal clear thought,

She may also be trying to say that everything's appearance, because we never really know what reality is

Even if we did not know what reality is (which is preposterous) why would that mean that everything is appearance?