Talk:Reality

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 6 months

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Ethics

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors:

[[Many-worlds interpretation#Debate whether the other worlds are real|a debate as to how real the (other) worlds are]] The anchor (#Debate whether the other worlds are real) has been deleted.

The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.

Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"add z to x,y,"

As I remember in school. The definition of reality is:

   The physical matter and it's smaller defined make, not reliant on perspective.

As this definition funtions in the use of objective reasoning as accurate, in comparison to subjective reasoning; the request submitted has a more practical and Lehman application that aids to a more populated use. "Narrative economics as a probable source". Yourpracticalword (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it should be "God," not "a 'God.'"

1. "God," when capitalized, is a proper noun and refers to the concept in monotheism, not to one of many supernatural beings sometimes labeled "gods."

2. The rest of the article is written in American English, so the use of single instead of double quotation marks is inconsistent.

3. Adding quotation marks at all in this instance is a use of scare quotes. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "a god or gods". Shapeyness (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary

Imaginary stuff is in the mind of person who imagines so is somewhere in the universe or reality so the distinction at the beginning is wrong because imaginary stuff also is part of reality. 85.53.20.245 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad opening sentence

"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual."

Recommend not defining reality by using its own term, which is in need of definition, "Reality is . . . all that is real. . ." Likewise, "imaginary" and "nonactual" are being here used as antonyms, which require a definition of the original term. It's like defining reality as that which is real as opposed to that which is unreal.

Nothing is really explained here. Maybe scrap the first sentence altogether and start with the second sentence. Geraldpriddle (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the another issue is that the intro should summarize the article. I made changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lede was changed again, from

Reality is a concept that varies with context and culture.

which is clearly supported by the article, to

Reality is the sum or aggregate of all objects that exist, as opposed to being imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual.

which is not discussed in the article as far as I can tell.

@Brent Silby why did you make that change? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Johnjbarton! The reason I made that change is because "reality is a concept that varies with context and culture" doesn't tell us what reality is. I believe that article's first sentence should attempt to approximately define the name of the article as best as it can. I looked at other articles whose names heavily depend on context, and none of them start their lead section by saying that their main concept varies with context. They all give an approximate definition that a reader can work with. Brent Silby (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disagree. The first sentence is not sensible and not supported by sources. I guess it corresponds to some philosophical concept a couple of centuries ago. We're not giving readers an approximate definition, but one that is out dated and culturally narrow. It is a reassuring definition with religious overtones, rather than one that is, well, realistic.

"Reality" is used in multiple ways. The dictionary entries cited in the article focus on the easy definitions, meanings closely associated with local observable object existence. You and I could sit in front of a cup of coffee and discuss its "reality" compared to "imaginary" unicorns. The first sentence chooses the hardest and least clear definition, some kind of philosophical overview concept. As a matter of science it is not possible to describe "all objects that exist" and this idea is only a feature of a minority of philosophical traditions. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]