What, if Anything, is "Reality"
We are hard-wired to accept the direct and indirect evidence of our senses as painting a picture of the "real world". Whatever disagreements we may have over interpretation, we all take it for granted that there is a real world "out there". We are just limited in the amount of evidence we can collect, the power of our analytical tools etc.
The inevitable conclusion for all of his is that "reality", as we experience it, is about our experience (something that happens in our heads) and is not something separate. Our ideas about the world are not the world itself.
This observation has been made repeatedly down through the ages. I encountered it twice at approximately the same time back in the 1970's. First in the Tao Te Ching:
Later, I struggled to understand a much deeper and more fundamental issue, the "EPR Paradox" in which Einstein directly challenged the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in which we can only speak of the results of experiments and not what is "really going on". Einstein, quite reasonably, felt sure that there was an underlying reality there whether we measured it or not. He designed a "thought experiment" that would settle the issue. To make a long story short, it was eventually possible to actually perform the experiment and Einstein was wrong. In a fundamental sense, there is nothing "going on out there" apart from the stories we tell ourselves about our experiences.
Before I go on, I must point out that both Wittgenstein and the EPR paradox are right at the edge of what I able to grasp. I'm not an expert or even a passable student of such issues. In fact, in the link I provided above, the EPR paradox is described in a way I have not seen before.
You don't need to be immersed in the arcane world of Western Philosophy or Quantum Mechanics to run into this issue. Most recently, I encountered it in an issue of National Geographic, which covered he phenomenon of "Mary worship" around he world. Along the way, we learn that there are literally thousands of people who claim to have been visited by the celestial Mary. Possibly quite a few more than have actually performed the EPR experiment.
How can we deal with this? It seems to me that the answer lies in the concept of "intelligibility", combined with the rather awkward interpretation of "reality" that we see culture in general. Even in Science, our confidence in what we know about "reality" comes out of consensus. For example, a Scientific experiment or observation is not seen as valid unless it can be repeated or shared with anyone. But the same criterion, if thousands of people agree that that they have seen the risen Virgin Mary (or Christ, or any other celestial being), then you have .... what?
What you have is a shared experience. Something that "believers" can talk about in a way that "makes sense" to each other. "Reality" can never be more than what we agree it to be. What's worse, that "reality" will differ in fundamental ways depending on who is talking to whom.
All this leads me to a certain humility when I am tempted to dismiss the world view of religions, which are basically communities of people who can discuss their "reality" in terms intelligible to each other.
There are ways to wriggle out of this interpretation, but it's wise not to leave humility behind. One way that makes sense to me, proposed by Alisdair Macintyre is to think that my philosophy is somehow superior to yours if I can "explain" or talk intelligibly in my universe about yours but you cannot do he same about mine. For example, I have no problem explaining (in my terms) why a "cargo cult" culture might emerge, but that culture would have problems explaining how actual aircraft work.
That's all very well, but it still leaves you with the conclusion that "reality" is what we say it is and what it really is is perhaps forever beyond our grasp. In fact, I find Macintyre's interpretation of the situation to be both satisfying and deeply discouraging.
See also related post "What, if anything, is the real world"
The inevitable conclusion for all of his is that "reality", as we experience it, is about our experience (something that happens in our heads) and is not something separate. Our ideas about the world are not the world itself.
This observation has been made repeatedly down through the ages. I encountered it twice at approximately the same time back in the 1970's. First in the Tao Te Ching:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Taoand in the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said that what we could not talk about in the "language game" must be passed over in silence.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of myriad things
Later, I struggled to understand a much deeper and more fundamental issue, the "EPR Paradox" in which Einstein directly challenged the standard interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, in which we can only speak of the results of experiments and not what is "really going on". Einstein, quite reasonably, felt sure that there was an underlying reality there whether we measured it or not. He designed a "thought experiment" that would settle the issue. To make a long story short, it was eventually possible to actually perform the experiment and Einstein was wrong. In a fundamental sense, there is nothing "going on out there" apart from the stories we tell ourselves about our experiences.
Before I go on, I must point out that both Wittgenstein and the EPR paradox are right at the edge of what I able to grasp. I'm not an expert or even a passable student of such issues. In fact, in the link I provided above, the EPR paradox is described in a way I have not seen before.
You don't need to be immersed in the arcane world of Western Philosophy or Quantum Mechanics to run into this issue. Most recently, I encountered it in an issue of National Geographic, which covered he phenomenon of "Mary worship" around he world. Along the way, we learn that there are literally thousands of people who claim to have been visited by the celestial Mary. Possibly quite a few more than have actually performed the EPR experiment.
How can we deal with this? It seems to me that the answer lies in the concept of "intelligibility", combined with the rather awkward interpretation of "reality" that we see culture in general. Even in Science, our confidence in what we know about "reality" comes out of consensus. For example, a Scientific experiment or observation is not seen as valid unless it can be repeated or shared with anyone. But the same criterion, if thousands of people agree that that they have seen the risen Virgin Mary (or Christ, or any other celestial being), then you have .... what?
What you have is a shared experience. Something that "believers" can talk about in a way that "makes sense" to each other. "Reality" can never be more than what we agree it to be. What's worse, that "reality" will differ in fundamental ways depending on who is talking to whom.
All this leads me to a certain humility when I am tempted to dismiss the world view of religions, which are basically communities of people who can discuss their "reality" in terms intelligible to each other.
There are ways to wriggle out of this interpretation, but it's wise not to leave humility behind. One way that makes sense to me, proposed by Alisdair Macintyre is to think that my philosophy is somehow superior to yours if I can "explain" or talk intelligibly in my universe about yours but you cannot do he same about mine. For example, I have no problem explaining (in my terms) why a "cargo cult" culture might emerge, but that culture would have problems explaining how actual aircraft work.
That's all very well, but it still leaves you with the conclusion that "reality" is what we say it is and what it really is is perhaps forever beyond our grasp. In fact, I find Macintyre's interpretation of the situation to be both satisfying and deeply discouraging.
See also related post "What, if anything, is the real world"
I agree with your premise. Individual reality is based upon experiential interpretation of events in our lives and our life experience helps color and interpret "what is going on" 'out there'. We relate to each other on the basis of "experiential input" but as in Einstein's EPR Paradox each individual will interpret the input differently, colored by the life experience past, so that each interpretation can be vastly different or very similiar to each. Hence the similarities are the basis for community (intelligibility)through which familiar jargon is developed. For example: the evangelicals are a prime example of creating their own reality which is developed and perpetuated by the use of jargon that only other evangelicals would recognize. ie: "blood of the lamb"
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I have made my point clear or added to the discussion, but I felt that your effort to provide this essay on such a subjective topic was worth a plaudit from the follower(s) of your blog. I started reading "Being wrong" today.