What is real? When I place my hands on this keyboard, does it exist because I believe it does, or does it find its existence in the fact that it is a material object? Is anything real? A realist may allege that reality is objective and that material objects exist independently of our consciousness. This keyboard, for example, would exist even if I had never seen it before simply because it was produced. An anti-realist might argue that it exists because it has been assimilated into my conceptual system of cataloging and identification; reality is a synthetic construct. In the debate for the definition of reality, I find I side with the realists. I believe in a materialistic reality independent of consciousness. Anti-realism is credited to philosopher Nelson Goodman.
According to Goodman, we construct reality. The objects we see and interact with are simply concepts within our mind. Though I do believe this notion describes reality, I do believe it depicts the unique psychology of sentient beings. I believe that because we are conscious creatures capable of contemplating our existence, we are able to interpret the material environment as we see fit. It is for this reason that we sometimes can become disillusioned or otherwise psychologically distraught.
The entire branch of cognitive psychology deals with this concept: the world around us is as we see it. It is here that anti-realism faults. If one’s perception of reality is based on our their own conceptual constructs, does it alter the existence of the object to everyone else? Similar to anti-realism in its emphasis on perception, yet not in opposition to realism, Husserl’s phenomenology states that the world is far more complex than we are able to see at one time. We experience the world in all its complexity only to observe a tiny portion of it. This theory may be used by anti-realism as proof that perception is highly involved, however it does not seem to address the roll of the physicality of objects in its definition of reality.
The Term Paper on Realism vs. Anti-Realism
Realism vs. Anti-Realism At first, I choose not to take a stand between these two ethnical positions. It is for the reason that the positions both have arguments I can’t simply brush under the rug. While anti-realists are right when they say rightness and wrongness cannot always be decided categorically, on the other hand, realists talks about matters of practicality. Judging by what I only have I ...
Moreover, it seems Husserl is addressing the psychological aspect of consciousness rather than the definition of reality. This would come as no surprise as Husserl’s theories were featured in his work whose title translates to, ‘Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint.’ As a result, phenomenology may also be applied to realism. A realist believes reality is objective. Realism states that no matter your perception of an object, it carries with it two primary characteristics that make it real: It is constructed of tangible elements, and it will exist whether or not you are present. Realism maintains that these concrete ‘universals’ exist independently of one’s knowledge of their existence.
Following a similar premise, Scientific Realism maintains that reality is bound to the scientific laws that describe it. I find this to be a sensible explanation of the world around us. If I hold a penny outside a building, does it not fall? An anti-realist may argue that it falls not because of scientific laws unto themselves, but rather because of the prevalent consciousness to those laws. My quarrel with anti-realism is that it would seem that it promotes the idea that the world around us is modeled after each individual’s will. If this is true then I ask, what happens when the wills collide? I cannot find an answer to this question in anti-realism. Another branch of philosophical theory attempts to arbitrate the clash between realism and idealism.
Pragmatism adds a utilitarian edge to the argument. Pragmatism states that reality should be defined in practical consequences. Pragmatists ask, what difference would each theory make in each individual’s life? Further, if there is no difference than the debate will not be resolved and no answer will be found. The argument, therefore, becomes moot. I find this theory to be rather hands off in its objectivity in the search for reality. It seems it addresses the usefulness of the debate of what is real rather than attempting to define it.
The Essay on Reflections on Perception of Reality
I have always believed in what I saw, what I heard, and what I experienced. As these elements play a significant role of perceiving the world around me, it is very hard to distrust the reality. However, it was not a long ago that I began to ponder about this issue more profoundly. What do I really perceive? Could I precisely explain our perception without the help of science? As I spend more time ...
Personally, I believe that reality exists outside of consciousness. I believe that when I leave this room, the objects in it will persist because they are tangible and material. This is not to say, however that I do not place any faith in the arguments of anti-realism. I feel these arguments apply to one’s psychological perception of reality, however I do not believe they are justifiably pertinent to the definition reality itself. I believe that phenomenology explains the way we may view reality, however I believe this view is independent of reality. It is for these reasons that I place my faith in realism..
