I wonder if there is such a thing as unreality (we do say things are unreal). Maybe, the term should be nonreality. If there is such a thing, maybe Andrew can tell us if that is a metaphysical subject. The thread on reality turned into so much fun I just thought I'd ask.
UNReality
- Thread starter Smitty37
- Start date
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Jeesh Leroy, if I had half the free time you had, then I'd go make a pen or something. 
Mike Powell
Member
I think LeRoy and I are alot alike. I like to stir the pot also....
SDB777
Member
My Unreality says........."When you beat a dead horse it makes no sense, but it does make a mess that needs to be cleaned up."
Scott (see where this is going) B
Scott (see where this is going) B
If I were your unreality I think I might not follow the thread. I've never fully understood why folks who claim a thread is boring, beating a dead horse, or unnecessary keep following them.
jimjam66
Member
I've never fully understood why folks who claim a thread is boring, beating a dead horse, or unnecessary keep following them.
It's the same instinct that keeps us looking at a car wreck - it's horrible but fascinating. We know we shouldn't but we just can't help ourselves ...
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
You might want to talk to Andrew about that....-36 sounds more like cold than lack of heat to me. Maybe that is unheat?
If you had half the free time I have you'd probably be a lot older than you are now and might not be able to stand up that long (unless you make your pens sitting down)Jeesh Leroy, if I had half the free time you had, then I'd go make a pen or something.
SteveG
Member
HEY!! What is wrong with making pens sitting down? Making pens standing up just means you are not sitting down enough, which is an unreality in itself.:biggrin::biggrin:
I'm not implying that making pens sitting down is bad....just that most of the folks that I've seen mention it on here don't do it. I'm going to try it with my new lathe.
Non-heat may fill the definition in a more satisfactory manner
tbroye
Member
Hey Leroy. Want me to send a big Paddle for stirring up the **** They gave it to me at work one time for stirring up the pot, that was after we won the battle with management
Hmmmm, I think I'd rather have you send me a big order.....I just jump in the pot and start splashing to juice things up.:biggrin:
tbroye
Member
I haven't used up the last big order from you.
:biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
Joe S.
Member
Thread title from Smitty next week: "Anti-unreality".
No I think I'll go with antidisestablishmentarianism --- of course Andrew might think that too political.
Curly
Member
I saw the thread title and thought this was a discussion about the United Nations and it's accomplishments or effectiveness. I suppose my assumptions were a tad unrealistic. 
Krudwig
Member
Ok I'll bite. So if like some here suggest that we can not comprehend or understand reality and that it is an illusion then it must not really exist. So it may be like the movie the matrix and everything we see is part of the program we are being feed. It could be we are all living in a virtual world that is not real either. Truth is if you give up on reality and truth anything is possible. Almost every action movie contains something "unreal" or things that could never happen in our reall world that is governed by natural law. Take the movie The Man Of Steel recently released to DVD, if you do not believe in reality you might be tricked into believing that those feats of superhuman strength are real, of course we who are living in the real world know that all of it is unreal so there are all type of unreal things. Leroy knows this and most every one else here knows it as well, but truth be known when people create their on reality anything is possible. I for one wish at times I could suspend natural law and live in an unreal world where I could do whatever I wish without consequences. But I am living in the real world where reality is all too real at times. I have helped many families deal with all types of real struggles including the reality of death. So I like to watch movies and shows that present the unreal all the time because it allows me to escape the all too real world for a while, pen turning has let me do that also. That being said I like the unreal but I know it is exactly that unreal.
tbroye
Member
OH! now we are going to spell long words?
mikespenturningz
Member
I saw the thread title and thought this was a discussion about the United Nations and it's accomplishments or effectiveness. I suppose my assumptions were a tad unrealistic.
Un-Untied Nations, Unaccomplishments, anti-effectiveness ?
Joe S.
Member
Did you see the extras in that DVD with the "documentary" about the planet Krypton?
Too hard to stay apolitical when talking about the United Nations which is by it's very nature a political organization.I saw the thread title and thought this was a discussion about the United Nations and it's accomplishments or effectiveness. I suppose my assumptions were a tad unrealistic.
mikespenturningz
Member
Too hard to stay apolitical when talking about the United Nations which is by it's very nature a political organization.I saw the thread title and thought this was a discussion about the United Nations and it's accomplishments or effectiveness. I suppose my assumptions were a tad unrealistic.
I tried not to say too much.. I think I did OK...
Krudwig
Member
Did you see the extras in that DVD with the "documentary" about the planet Krypton?[/QUOTE]
No I didn't watch the documentary also I didn't care too much for the movie either, but I've never been a big fan of Superman either.
No I didn't watch the documentary also I didn't care too much for the movie either, but I've never been a big fan of Superman either.
I always wondered why someone with all those powers would need to disguise himself as a mild mannered reporter for the Daily Planet.....
At least Billy Batson had to say Shazam to get his super powers as Captain Marvel.
:wink: Information the human sensory systems can't or have not detected and/or processed is unreal to the individual.
You purely do want to get into that Philosophy 101 Metaphysics discussion don't you.:biggrin:
Not really..... not sure if I ever even heard of Metaphysics prior to a few days ago. Just trying to participate and up to this moment, that's the best my uneducated mind can come up with that sort of makes sense to me.
Metaphysics
I think there are 3 or 4 main divisions of Philosophy and Metaphysics is one of them....contemplating reality is one of the major ideas it addresses. I would think that unreality or more likely just unreal comes up in the discussions. At any rate discussing reality in metaphysical terms leads nowhere it keeps returning to humans not even being able to trust their senses to determine whether or not anything is real so there is no reality.
I think there are 3 or 4 main divisions of Philosophy and Metaphysics is one of them....contemplating reality is one of the major ideas it addresses. I would think that unreality or more likely just unreal comes up in the discussions. At any rate discussing reality in metaphysical terms leads nowhere it keeps returning to humans not even being able to trust their senses to determine whether or not anything is real so there is no reality.
I'm getting the sharp end of the stick here, aren't I?
Reality is what we perceive to be real - rightly or wrongly.
As Plato said, all we're observing are shadows on the cave wall (read Plato's Cave Allegory - I think it's in the Republic?)...so I guess all Reality is really just 'wrong' reality...
So sure, let's call the world unreal today! :biggrin:
Reality is what we perceive to be real - rightly or wrongly.
As Plato said, all we're observing are shadows on the cave wall (read Plato's Cave Allegory - I think it's in the Republic?)...so I guess all Reality is really just 'wrong' reality...
So sure, let's call the world unreal today! :biggrin:
Below is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - even after reading it over and the rest of the section on Metaphysics I can't really understand it but then I only have about a 135 IQ anymore....
If Philosophers can't even agree on whether Metaphysics is possible how can us poor laymen who are just trying to keep body (if we have an body) and soul (if we have a soul) together ever reach an agreement that anything (including our disagreement) is real in a metaphysical sense.
5. Is Metaphysics Possible?
At least since the time of Hume, there have been those who have presented arguments for the impossibility of metaphysics (whatever metaphysics may be). This entry will examine only certain recent arguments for this conclusion.
The thesis that metaphysics is impossible comes in what might be called strong and weak forms. Let us suppose that we are confident that we are able to identify every statement as either "a metaphysical statement" or "not a metaphysical statement." (We need not suppose that this ability is grounded in some non-trivial definition or account of metaphysics.) The strong form of the thesis is this: All metaphysical statements are meaningless. (At one time, an enemy of metaphysics might have been content to say that all metaphysical statements were false. But this is obviously not a possible thesis if the denial of a metaphysical statement must itself be a metaphysical statement.) The weak form of the thesis is this: metaphysical statements are meaningful, but human beings can never discover whether any metaphysical statement is true or false (or probable or improbable or warranted or unwarranted).
If Philosophers can't even agree on whether Metaphysics is possible how can us poor laymen who are just trying to keep body (if we have an body) and soul (if we have a soul) together ever reach an agreement that anything (including our disagreement) is real in a metaphysical sense.
5. Is Metaphysics Possible?
At least since the time of Hume, there have been those who have presented arguments for the impossibility of metaphysics (whatever metaphysics may be). This entry will examine only certain recent arguments for this conclusion.
The thesis that metaphysics is impossible comes in what might be called strong and weak forms. Let us suppose that we are confident that we are able to identify every statement as either "a metaphysical statement" or "not a metaphysical statement." (We need not suppose that this ability is grounded in some non-trivial definition or account of metaphysics.) The strong form of the thesis is this: All metaphysical statements are meaningless. (At one time, an enemy of metaphysics might have been content to say that all metaphysical statements were false. But this is obviously not a possible thesis if the denial of a metaphysical statement must itself be a metaphysical statement.) The weak form of the thesis is this: metaphysical statements are meaningful, but human beings can never discover whether any metaphysical statement is true or false (or probable or improbable or warranted or unwarranted).
Last edited:
Metaphysics - the study of 'reality', or 'how the world works', or the like. Originally, one must recall, there were no branches of science - instead, it was all philosophy. The concept of 'Astrophysics' was considered 'Metaphysics' to philosophers like Copernicus. Over time, as 'philosophers (i.e. theoretical scientists) became more specialized, disciplines would separate out. Psychology didn't become it's own discipline until the late 1800s).
So metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with what we know, or can know, about how the world works - i.e. theoretical science - with, or without, the scientific process.
It takes it further, however, and discusses what we, as humans, can EVER know about the machinery of the universe - or if such machinery is an illusion. Many of these arguments aren't really presented 'seriously', but are encountered as a natural extension of an earlier argument. Essentially, it comes down to using Logic (the philosophical argument) to break each question into its base parts.
If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore, if A, then C.
One way to think about this is that even in the modern world, we do not have many scientific LAWS. We have theories, and many of these theories are consistenly proven to be useful, but we don't know if they're true. Philosophy discusses what things MUST be true, and which things MAY be true.
It's as if we're looking at the universe as if it's a giant clock. We can postulate how the insides work, as we can see the hands move, and hear the ticks - and we can predict things like the tick preceeding a movement of a clock hand - but we can't see inside the clock. When we get to the small nature of things, like quantum physics, we're still guessing - every generation finds smaller 'building blocks' - atoms, quarks, etc.
So can we 'know' metaphysics? Not sure. But saying that we cannot truly know metaphysics (i.e. how reality, or science, works), is in itself a metaphysical statement - as it's a statement about how the world works (i.e. saying we can't know, is a statement about how much we know).
That being said, that 'cliff's notes' version is certainly not all that metaphysics is, or discusses - it's a very narrow view about one aspect of metaphysics, and it wouldn't even be looked at until a third year philosophy course, I wouldn't think.
Skip those heady discussions (which presuppose that you've studied people like Aristotle, Plato, Descartes), and instead read Aristotle's Diomachian Ethics, Plato's Republic, Descartes, etc). Or better yet, start with the really early Greek philosophers like Anaximander of Rhodes, Demosthenes, etc. Those are more fun, and develop the building blocks to discuss this sort of nitpicky issue.
So metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with what we know, or can know, about how the world works - i.e. theoretical science - with, or without, the scientific process.
It takes it further, however, and discusses what we, as humans, can EVER know about the machinery of the universe - or if such machinery is an illusion. Many of these arguments aren't really presented 'seriously', but are encountered as a natural extension of an earlier argument. Essentially, it comes down to using Logic (the philosophical argument) to break each question into its base parts.
If A, then B. If B, then C. Therefore, if A, then C.
One way to think about this is that even in the modern world, we do not have many scientific LAWS. We have theories, and many of these theories are consistenly proven to be useful, but we don't know if they're true. Philosophy discusses what things MUST be true, and which things MAY be true.
It's as if we're looking at the universe as if it's a giant clock. We can postulate how the insides work, as we can see the hands move, and hear the ticks - and we can predict things like the tick preceeding a movement of a clock hand - but we can't see inside the clock. When we get to the small nature of things, like quantum physics, we're still guessing - every generation finds smaller 'building blocks' - atoms, quarks, etc.
So can we 'know' metaphysics? Not sure. But saying that we cannot truly know metaphysics (i.e. how reality, or science, works), is in itself a metaphysical statement - as it's a statement about how the world works (i.e. saying we can't know, is a statement about how much we know).
That being said, that 'cliff's notes' version is certainly not all that metaphysics is, or discusses - it's a very narrow view about one aspect of metaphysics, and it wouldn't even be looked at until a third year philosophy course, I wouldn't think.
Skip those heady discussions (which presuppose that you've studied people like Aristotle, Plato, Descartes), and instead read Aristotle's Diomachian Ethics, Plato's Republic, Descartes, etc). Or better yet, start with the really early Greek philosophers like Anaximander of Rhodes, Demosthenes, etc. Those are more fun, and develop the building blocks to discuss this sort of nitpicky issue.
That was copied verbatum from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which as near as I could tell was published by Stanford University. I included it because it does illustrate that there is even difficulty in determining if a statement is actually metaphysical. I knew that and that is why I don't enter metaphysical discussions.
I'm an engineer and if it works - use it and don't worry about whether or not you "know" that it works.
I'm an engineer and if it works - use it and don't worry about whether or not you "know" that it works.
antidisestablishmentarianism
How many people (off the top of their head) know what that word means? And when it was in use? Be honest.
How many people (off the top of their head) know what that word means? And when it was in use? Be honest.
As a world history teacher, yes, I know both...
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
Me too - actually it is still used but not spoken very often.