Reality encompasses the totality of all existence, be it known or unknown. It describes the ever-existing presence of what is within the sum of an all encompassing system. Despite this definition, problems continue to arise in understanding reality. For instance, what is realities nature? Is reality necessary by its own virtue, or does the realm of possibility still exist within reality? Do abstract ideas exist, or are they non-existent byproducts of the mind? Finally, do alternate realities exist? Many of these questions will be tackled in upcoming future posts. For now however, this post shall give a brief overview of distinguishing different schools of thought pertaining to the nature of reality.
Upon investigating schools of thought pertaining to realities nature, two main distinguishing schools of thought emerge: realism and anti-realism, each of which contains many distinct schools and theories on the nature of reality.
The Nature of Reality
"All those bodies which compose the frame of the world
have not any substance without a mind."- George Berkeley
Let us begin with realism. Realism holds the view that aspects of reality exist, independent of our perceptions and our conceptualizations. In other words, the existence of a thing is not predicated on whether one perceives the thing or contemplates the things nature. For example, a tree exists of its own accord, and the nature of that tree's existence is not contingent upon whether one perceives the tree or contemplates the concept of tree. The tree simply exists, is its own being, and is independent of the existence of the observer. Two existing, albeit broad sub schools of realism exist, these being direct (or "naïve) realism, and indirect (or "representational") realism. The former argues that the world as perceived by us is reflective of realities true nature. When we look out at a lake, we see the lake in terms of its true nature. The lakes state of being is synonymous with the perception of the observer. However, the latter argues that the reality by which we perceive is an indirect, inaccurate, representative or "copied" representation of reality. For example, the lake by which we perceive is inaccurate to the true existing lake. The ontological nature of the lake is distinct from our perception of the lake, which is indirect, misrepresented, or inaccurate.
In contrast, anti-realism suggests that there is no external reality. Instead, reality, as we understand it, is simply a byproduct of the mind. By this view, existence, and our understanding of it, is mental by nature. Things do not possess an independent existence; instead, they only exist as byproducts, or "qualities" of the mind. The main school of thought is known as idealism (a contrast to materialism, which suggests that reality is purely physical) and has largely fallen out of popularity in the last century. However, this school of thought does still exist, and is still present as a metaphysical explanation of reality.
Being
"The only thing that is permanent is change."- Heraclitus
Within this all encompassing reality, several different manifestations result. One of which, obviously, is us. We exist, and therefore, we must relate ourselves to this all encompassing reality. This is the purpose of virtually every religious, philosophical and scientific school in existence. All of these schools attempt to answer, what does reality consist of? What is its nature? This is distinct from the previous section, as being attempts to explain the existence of a thing itself. This post covers the "being" of reality, in terms of how it manifests.
In an attempt to explain being, several philosophers have created distinct and opposing metaphysical claims about reality. Parmenides proposed that reality was essentially an all encompassing being, in that it was eternal, never changing, and constantly retaining its form and substance. In direct contrast, Heraclitus proposed that reality was not an eternal state of being, but constantly in a state of becoming. He likened it to a flowing river, in which everything is in constant flux, and nothing stays the same, even for a moment. Eternal change is all there is, and we, along with everything else, exist in a constant state of flow.
Heraclitus's view of reality has been widely influential. One notable philosopher who shared this view of becoming was the Buddha, who proposed that reality was fundamentally impermanent, in that it is always changing. Ignorance of this change leads people to cling to things, which is the root cause of suffering.
Abstract Objects and Properties
(The Greek philosopher Plato, who argued
that reality consisted of ideal forms).
When attempting to understand reality, we often view it under the lens of the concrete. We think of physical objects and properties, and often neglect to ponder the existence of the abstract. While some philosophers argue that the abstract is merely a product of human psychology, and not real in the objective sense, others view the abstract as a real aspect of reality, and being just as present in reality as the concrete.
To provide an example, let us look at some of the most famous contrasting viewpoints in philosophy, these being Platonic realism and Aristotelean realism. Plato viewed the abstract as not only existing, but as being the central aspect of reality. Indeed, Plato argued that the reality by which we perceive is not the true nature of reality at all. Instead, reality lied in a realm which Plato dubbed "the realm of ideal forms." The forms in question, are abstract metaphysical entities which were pure in their essence and nature. A form, quite literally, is what it is, and is nothing else, and is perfect. For example, the form of beauty was quite literally beauty itself, and was nothing else but beauty. All other properties that we understand exist in this world as well. Such examples include the form of triangles, chairs, men, color, and the form of the good.
Unlike the world of forms, our world is merely a "shadow realm" to the world of the forms, where the properties of this world are the properties of the forms manifesting imperfectly. For example, the form of beauty may be present in a woman of this world, but no matter how beautiful such a woman is, she will still manifest some aspects of ugliness. Because of this, she may be beautiful, but she is not perfectly beautiful, nor is she beauty in-and-of-itself. As such, she is imperfect, and not the most real manifestation of beauty. This is the case for all properties, as none of them can match the ideal forms. As a result, the forms themselves are the most real objects, while our concrete reality is less real.
Unlike Plato, Aristotle differed substantially in his metaphysics, arguing instead that the concrete is what is most real. Aristotle did argue that forms exist, but they were not abstract, ideal entities. Instead, the true forms were found as an aspect of an object. For example, if one wishes to build a chair, one must have the tools necessary to make the chair, and the matter to do so (Aristotle referred to this as the material cause). However, upon completing the chair, the matter which was used takes on the form of chair (the formal cause). As a result, the real chair is not the abstract form, but the physical chair within which one sits. One cannot sit in the form of chair, nor can they sit in the matter used to create the chair. It is only through combination of a material and formal cause, does one produce the chair. Thus, the chair is more real than the abstract form of chair. This as well, applies to all things. The ideal is not the most real, the concrete individual object is the most real.
Alternate Realities
"Opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree"-Hermes Trismegitus
In understanding reality, philosophy has a strict doctrine, which they refer to as the law of non-contradiction. This forces a philosopher to not come to a conclusion that is contradictory. For example, something cannot be true and false simultaneously. The problem with this doctrine is that it's possible, if not probable, that contradiction is a central aspect of reality. This has been demonstrated through theoretical physics.
Theoretical physicists have concluded that the fundamental building blocks of matter consist of microscopic particles known as atoms. The individual features of an atom are contingent upon what element is being studied, but each contains the same types of subatomic particles. In the center of an atom exists the nucleus, which contains protons (positively charged particles) and neutrons (particles with no charge). Surrounding the nucleus is a shell consisting of electrons (negatively charged particles) which rotate around the nucleus. When thinking of rotation, common sense suggests that the electrons must either rotate clockwise or counterclockwise. However, physicists have determined that electrons actually rotate clockwise and counterclockwise simultaneously. This, in-and-of-itself, is a contradiction. Nevertheless, it occurs.
Because contradiction occurs at this level of existence, there is little reason to dispute that it may occur on other levels of reality. Indeed, physics suggests that this is the case. A physics blog provides an example of how this can occur. Lets say that a scientist were to set up an experiment in which an electron detector were attached to a gun, which was aiming at a cat. The detector is designed to activate the gun if it detects the electron traveling clockwise. If the gun does go off, the cat is shot, dead. However, if the electron travels counterclockwise, the detector will not go off, leaving the gun unchanged and the cat still alive. As we have established, electrons travel in both directions simultaneously. As a result, the detector both goes off, and does not. Furthermore, the gun both fires and doesn't fire, and the cat is both alive and dead. All of these outcomes are paradoxical, yet the mathematics of quantum mechanics demonstrate them to be the case. Of course, we never paradoxical outcomes occurring. The reason for this is because of our own nature. When we observe this event happening, our presence influences the flow of events. Through observation, the outcome is forced to collapse into a single event (e.g., dead or not dead cat) despite the fact that both outcomes are occurring. This theory explains the probability that multiple universes exist.
Thousands of years ago, philosopher Hermes Trismegistus produced a series of texts that led to the development of hermeticism. Within this philosophy, seven fundamental truths are expressed in an attempt to explain the fundamental nature of reality. The fourth of these principles (the law of polarity) makes a claim that overlaps with this theory proposed by quantum mechanics. With this law, Hermes proposes that all things that are opposite are merely different ends of a spectrum; that is, they are the same thing. Love/hate, life/death, masculine/feminine, light/dark; all these are essentially of the same essence, the only difference lying in there degree. Through the law of quantum mechanics, the principle of polarity can be extended to outcomes themselves. This suggests that reality is not merely existence of this universe, but is indeed a vast (possibly infinite) multiverse were all possible outcomes are happening simultaneously. Like the other theories presented, I shall cover this in more detail in a future post.
Conclusion
The conclusion of these piece lies not in the definition for reality, but in the finishing of its introduction. Reality is to vast and to complicated a subject to be covered in a single piece. Do not let that deter you, my reader. The philosophical schools describing reality and the human relationship with reality shall be further elaborated on in many future posts to come. Let this first post merely serve as an introduction for this complex and fascinating subject. Many things might be said and discussed, and this post merely describes the tip of the iceberg for this subject.I hope my readers enjoyed this first post, and I look forward to what is yet to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment