Talk:Reality

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 6 months

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Ethics

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Many-worlds interpretation#Debate whether the other worlds are real|a debate as to how real the (other) worlds are]] The anchor (#Debate whether the other worlds are real) has been deleted.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"add z to x,y,"

As I remember in school. The definition of reality is:

   The physical matter and it's smaller defined make, not reliant on perspective.

As this definition funtions in the use of objective reasoning as accurate, in comparison to subjective reasoning; the request submitted has a more practical and Lehman application that aids to a more populated use. "Narrative economics as a probable source". Yourpracticalword (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it should be "God," not "a 'God.'"

1. "God," when capitalized, is a proper noun and refers to the concept in monotheism, not to one of many supernatural beings sometimes labeled "gods."

2. The rest of the article is written in American English, so the use of single instead of double quotation marks is inconsistent.

3. Adding quotation marks at all in this instance is a use of scare quotes. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "a god or gods". Shapeyness (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary

Imaginary stuff is in the mind of person who imagines so is somewhere in the universe or reality so the distinction at the beginning is wrong because imaginary stuff also is part of reality. 85.53.20.245 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad opening sentence

"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual."

Recommend not defining reality by using its own term, which is in need of definition, "Reality is . . . all that is real. . ." Likewise, "imaginary" and "nonactual" are being here used as antonyms, which require a definition of the original term. It's like defining reality as that which is real as opposed to that which is unreal.

Nothing is really explained here. Maybe scrap the first sentence altogether and start with the second sentence. Geraldpriddle (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the another issue is that the intro should summarize the article. I made changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lede was changed again, from

Reality is a concept that varies with context and culture.

which is clearly supported by the article, to

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all objects that exist, as opposed to being imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual.

which is not discussed in the article as far as I can tell.

@Brent Silby why did you make that change? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Johnjbarton! The reason I made that change is because "reality is a concept that varies with context and culture" doesn't tell us what reality is. I believe that article's first sentence should attempt to approximately define the name of the article as best as it can. I looked at other articles whose names heavily depend on context, and none of them start their lead section by saying that their main concept varies with context. They all give an approximate definition that a reader can work with. Brent Silby (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disagree. The first sentence is not sensible and not supported by sources. I guess it corresponds to some philosophical concept a couple of centuries ago. We're not giving readers an approximate definition, but one that is out dated and culturally narrow. It is a reassuring definition with religious overtones, rather than one that is, well, realistic.

"Reality" is used in multiple ways. The dictionary entries cited in the article focus on the easy definitions, meanings closely associated with local observable object existence. You and I could sit in front of a cup of coffee and discuss its "reality" compared to "imaginary" unicorns. The first sentence chooses the hardest and least clear definition, some kind of philosophical overview concept. As a matter of science it is not possible to describe "all objects that exist" and this idea is only a feature of a minority of philosophical traditions. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I entirely changed the first paragraph as per your suggestion. Brent Silby (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was a direct copy of content on a web site. See WP:COPYPASTE or WP:CIRCULAR. I reverted the content to my earlier version. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I was to paraphrase it, would it be fine? Brent Silby (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the introduction paragraph could be better, but the starting point should be a solid reliable reference, one that matches the overall character of the page. The overall character of the page clearly does not support the "sum of all that exists" concept as the primary point of view. Rather the page supports the idea that reality is a complex idea because the underlying concept of "exists" is complex. The first thing that readers should know about "Reality" is that it has complexity and the second thing is the "sum of all that exists".

In this regard the web site you references contradicts itself. How can "abstract constructs" be "independent of human perception or beliefs". We need a real source. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that reality is a concept is extremely controversial. I propose

Reality is the sum or aggregate everything in existence, as opposed to that which is only imaginary or nonexistent.

Cheers, Patrick (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like your option. If we are to use it, we should put it as the first section in the lead instead of the "Reality is a concept that varies with context and culture." Brent Silby (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my proposal. This could be followed by a sentence saying that it has been conceptualized in many different ways across cultures.

I don't think the last sentence belongs in the first paragraph at all. Patrick (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the last sentence belongs to the lead at all. I am going to put it bluntly, it sounds like some postmodernist stuff and should be nowhere near the opening of an article on Wikipedia, a website that goes out of its way to protect truth from pseudoscience. Brent Silby (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand @Johnjbarton's argument that lead should summarize the article, but if the article is saying such things, then I'd rather completely change the article. Brent Silby (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles on other philosophical topics also include multiple points of view, but the first sentence of the lead section almost always gives some basic definition as a sort of a sanity check. Brent Silby (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the article to include "sum of all that exists" concept with reliable sources would be great. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I will go hunting for academic sources on this topic. More than happy to work on this article. Brent Silby (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence was incorrect. Please see my attempted fix. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I don't understand your post. The very first thing you say is that reality is "extremely controversial". I basically agree and that is what the first sentence should get across. So why are you proposing one particular definition as if it were not controversial? Johnjbarton (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that saying that reality is so controversial that we cannot give a workable definition in the first sentence of the lead (something which most Wikipedia articles on such topic do) is more controversial than just going with one relatively conventional definition from some academic source. It doesn't need to be too ambitious. Brent Silby (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to read the article. As you read the article you will find many different points of view about "reality". To pick any one of these is not a neutral point of view.

But first I think we should have a source that backs your basic claim (which I think is ok). Show me in the article where a workable definition is given that matches your proposal. Show me a reliable source that gives that definition. If we at least identify your source we have a start. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be a miscommunication here. Here is my revised proposal for the first paragraph of the lead:

Reality is the sum or aggregate everything in existence, as opposed to that which is only imaginary or nonexistent. Different cultures and academic disciplines conceptualize it in various ways.

Patrick (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the miscommunication is related to the way the replies on the Talk page are interleaved. My reply was to Brent Silby.

Nevertheless I disagree with your proposal because it is unsourced and not characteristic of the article. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence could be supported by any dictionary. I'm open to other suggestions, but we certainly cannot say that reality is a concept, which is either a truism or a controversial form of idealism. Patrick (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is controversial is the specific claim that it is a concept. Patrick (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]