`` For All We Know ``

When discussing reality, several questions emerge regarding what reality is. A reality, "the real situation that exist," (Merriam-Webster.com) consists of two forms-perceived reality and actual reality. One spends his or her entire life trying to decipher the difference between the two forms; yet to truly understand reality, it is essential that you comprehend both. Plato 's "Allegory of the Cave," Dick Gregory 's "Shame" and Frederick Douglass ' "Learning to Read and Write" illustrate examples of both perceptions. Furthermore, how conceptualization of reality helps establish who one will become.

Firstly, readers decide on which of Emily Dickinson’s poems present human understanding as boundless and unlimited. Of course, for most this is all speculation, but this is one of Dickinson’s most prevalent poem that seems to present human understanding as boundless and unlimited. One example is, The Brain Is Wider Than The Sky is a poem that embodies this view of human understanding as boundless and unlimited. This poem’s main focus is the power and strength of the human brain or mind. This line from the text is a perfect representation of human understanding as boundless and unlimited, “The Brain-is wider than the Sky-...The one the other will contain”(Stanza 1, Line 1,3). These lines state the the brain or rather the mind is greater in size than the sky. It is saying

What is reality? What is known? These questions are constantly being reviewed keeping people anxiously waiting for the real answer. The Matrix is a popular movie dealing with many philosophical ideas from, Gods, Beauty, Reality, and existence. The Matrix deals with an intelligent “computer hacker,” Neo, who questions many things such as reality as he lives two different lives day vs. night. With that being said, Neo starts to ponder how does he know what is real, true, or all knowing. As humans we face this challenge everyday, how do we actually “know?” We know because of our senses, evidence, observations, assumption, and Epistemology.

Jim Baggott goes further in declaring reality to be a metaphysical concept and not measurable by the confines of science. In fact, reality can be manipulated by the human mind (Trigg 2015). Even Socrates and Aristotle had some understanding of this notion and took nothing in their physical world for granted when it came to trying to understand the nature of self to the physical. However rudimentary in their processes, as it were in their time, they still looked for explanations beyond the confines of their scientific

Have you ever questioned the nature of your reality? Questioned if you are completely able to see from the outside looking in? Philosopher Plato, presents his view of reality through an allegory to explain the concept, and how we gain knowledge of our reality. Two other philosophers that I will mention both touch base with their description of reality and how it relates to Plato’s conception. All three of these philosophers believe knowledge is attainable through acts of realization and simple knowledge, and each philosopher presents his/her main point of reality through different ways of attaining it. I will further mention the relevance of Plato’s theory in today’s world and why I believe it to be valuable.

1. What do you think Chalmers means by “fundamental reality,” and how does it relate to the idea of “multiple aspects of reality?”

interpretations it is stated that what we view within our minds are just rifts between reality and

A long time ago the difference between perception and reality was defined as the act of understanding in contrast to the act of being real. Reality could be tricky; most of us including myself depending on scenarios of our lives tend to give in to ideas which are not applicable to reality as a whole. The best example of this is written in the short story “All Over” by Guy de Maupassant. In which his main character Lormerin is very self conscious and narcissistic also Lise de Vance, a former old love plays a big role in hurting Lormerin ego and opening his eyes by showing him, his real self. Many would say that when reality knocks it could be harsh and confusing. In the next couple of

However, WORE and Freire have indicated that, “knowledge is changed to the extent that reality also moves and changes. Then theory also does the same. It’s not something stabilized, immobilized” (Freire,

Nagel explores how it is by all means possible to imagine that there are things humans may never

There is no single, true universal reality. What is real and true varies from individual to individual, in light of one's own thoughts, conditions, and learning. Through many year and over time many people have tried to take a hold on reality and alternate realities as well, on top of that they also had to deal with the facts of identity. In the movie 41 by Glenn Triggs, the fact of reality is altered by the view of time travel and it take a new perspective on reality and identity. This could be also compared to philosophers like Rene Descarte and David Hume, who put their point of view into what reality could really be and what it could really mean.

Peirce's essay describes the process of human thinking in its many variables to make us be aware of the complexity implicated in the conception of a "clear" idea. The author starts by stating the meaning of clear and obscure, distinct and confused. A clear idea is defined as one that can be simply recognized and that cannot be mistaken for any other thing, if it is not so, then it is considered obscure. From Peirce's point of view an idea must be distinct in order to be clear, than means that the person must be familiar to it.

According to Nagel, it is impossible to know if anything that one experiences is actually part of reality. This theory could appear enticing to some because that would mean every experience we have encountered never

While David Lewis’s essay “New Work for a Theory of Universals” (1983) is quite extensive in its scope and insight, I only wish to draw attention to his reasoning about the scope of universals. Lewis makes a more radical distinction between “property” and “universal” than most philosophers. Lewis defines the word “property” very broadly: an object has a property by virtue of being a member of a set, so there are as many properties as there are sets. Given that Lewis is a realist about both set theory and possible worlds, he must recognize a vast and exotic array of properties. There is a property of fuzzy redness and non-square largeness as much as there is a property of redness, both being sets. Obviously not everything that is designated a property can claim the status of universal. Only those properties that can be wholly present in multiple locations are candidates for being universals. Among these, those given by empirical science (natural properties) make the final cut and are crowned as universals.

The distinction that causes the most trouble in philosophy is the distinction between "appearance" and "reality," between what things seem to be and what they are. The painter wants to know what things seem to be, the practical man and the philosopher want to know what they are. . . . but if reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all? - Bertrand Russell, The Problems of Philosophy