Real. What is real? I was thinking about how it feels a bit sad that I can get so attached to fictional characters and their stories. So much that I just wish they were real! But they're not. Or are they?
Seriously. What is real?
Seriously. What is real?
Let me just remind everyone of my favorite quote:
Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry. But why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry. But why on earth should that mean that it is not real?
- Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore
Thoughts are real, right? I mean, they are real thoughts!
Are memories real? Considering the fact that they don't always correspond with the "truth", i.e. what actually did happen in the past, some might argue that they aren't necessarily real. But then again, a memory is a real memory, right? It is there. Otherwise you wouldn't be remembering. It is a memory.
Are memories real? Considering the fact that they don't always correspond with the "truth", i.e. what actually did happen in the past, some might argue that they aren't necessarily real. But then again, a memory is a real memory, right? It is there. Otherwise you wouldn't be remembering. It is a memory.
Multiple personalities in one body... That is considered a mental disorder. So, are the "extra" personalities not real? I would say that they are real. They are real identities constructed by the brain. Just like my personality! Or maybe personalities in general just aren't real? I think they are. No matter what we call it, personalities do seem to exist.
A lie is real. It is not the truth. But it is real. Once you've lied, that lie exists.
This could be a problem. Or maybe a solution. Probably both. It seems that according to my logic here, Harry Potter is real. Qui-Gon Jinn is real. Treebeard, Seeley Booth, all of the Lorelai Gilmores, Catniss Everdeen. Real. All of the different gods people believe in. All real!
Of course, as always, it all depends on the definition. How do you define the word real?
But then again, really? A word definition determines what is or isn't real?
Well, when it comes down to it, yes! After all, "real" is just a description. Just a word.
But then again, really? A word definition determines what is or isn't real?
Well, when it comes down to it, yes! After all, "real" is just a description. Just a word.
- So, basically what you're saying is that everything you just wrote is exactly as relevant and/or irrelevant as everything else??
- Yes. This is what it ALWAYS comes down to... It depends on how you look at it. Everything is relative!
- But... But that indicates that the statement itself is only true from certain points of view, and therefore is self-refuting.
- Yes. This is what it ALWAYS comes down to... It depends on how you look at it. Everything is relative!
- But... But that indicates that the statement itself is only true from certain points of view, and therefore is self-refuting.
- Yeah, I know. Wanna talk about how "truth" does not exist??
- Oh, please, no. I think I get it.
- Oh, please, no. I think I get it.
- Whatever, I'm not even sure you're real!
 |
| Definitely real! |
That is definitely one of my favorite quotes as well :)
ReplyDeleteI'm scared...
ReplyDeleteScared of me??
ReplyDeleteA very interesting debate that is. If one were to completely accept the final argument there would be a situation where truth and reality would become dissociated from each other. That being said, of course, one then has to ascertain precisely how to set the parameters for our lives. The parameter is intended for us to not becomes confused later as to whether lies becomes accepted as truth over time. That could occur and often does simply because by existing as a real event in time the lie therefore becomes a reality and consequently becomes accepted as a truth of life.
ReplyDeleteThe theory of relativity is a theory of physical law as applied to the relationship between matter, energy and time. It is not a philosophy and was not intended as such. However, the theory of relativity, due to its gravitic nature, has a large reflection within the human mind and has therefore been manipulated mentally into a form of pan-universal theory that has been accepted by much of the public as a philosophy of the universal laws. The fundamental inconsistency with the logical foundation of relativity as applied to social order is that philosophy is a subjective matter interpretable by not only intellect, but also emotions. Humans are emotional creatures and tend to interpret life symbolically. Physical laws of the universe, whether theoretical or proven are objective and not subject to emotional or symbolic interpretation. There is no wrong in emotional, symbolic, or subjective interpretation as that is simply human nature. However, it may be prudent for us to consider some form of a separation between the objective and subjective to prevent us from adopting a philosophical approach to life where we will accept any thing which is real at any moment in time as a real truth in our rather long lives as compared to that of many other life forms.
The content of life may be relative when considered by our emotions, but how relative is our identity as compared to our personality within a set of parameters set by laws which are objective? The proposition being made could be phrase as: an identity is a reality which is innate to a life form whereas a personality is an emotional interpolation of the identity which is influenced by experience, emotion, sensation, mental or physical functioning and variable external influences.
As I am rather prone to lengthy discourse, perhaps you could expound from this point onward.