Talk:Reality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Contents

[edit] Archived discussions

[edit] I must say...

That this article is REALLY well written.

[edit] Wiki

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.211 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, "reality" doesn't exist in the Wiktionary ... for the Wikipedia (as it was so 'sine qua non' important that those two (reference... working) couldn't just work in a single project).

(Sadly, I still doesn't really know if: reality, how it - or "she"(?) - is. (I know English doesn't know genders ... and it's sure here it isn't also like as for the Navy ships?) --de:Alien4 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libeling Thomas Szasz in "Psychoactive Substances and 'Reality'" section

This dreck article is par for the Wikipedia course. It says, ". Thomas Szasz called his LSD trip near the end of his life "one of the best experiences" he'd lived through..." The problem with this is twofold. Szasz isn't dead, so nobody knows when the "end of his life" will occur; and he never made this comment about using LSD. Wikipedians are satisfied that such a scandalous libel is labeled "citation needed," rather than to demand that entries be factual or be removed. I've changed "citation needed" to "disputed," but I haven't removed it because it is a good illustration of the fiction passed off as "reality" by Wikipedia, and someone would probably just change it back anyway. Nicmart 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not being very helpful. Controversial material which is not referenced to a reliable source should be removed. Especially if it relates to a living person. Fred Bauder 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
My purpose is not to be "helpful" to Wikipedia or its users, but to show why it deserves to have no credibility. In Wikipedia, living people can be declared dead and quotes falsely attributed to them.
You have now removed the Szasz nonsense, but left this: " Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results." In Wikiworld it is fine to include unsourced assertions ("Jean-Paul Sartre is said"...) about dead people. It happens all the time. Nicmart 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That is mentioned in http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.shtml without a specific source being given although I don't know what it has to do with the article. And at http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Jean-Paul%20Sartre in Everything2 at the comment by JerboaKolinowski some thoughtful commentary there, but again no specific source is cited. That comment seems to relate to reality. Also at http://www.slate.com/id/2088648/ in Slate. No source, but "pursued by a lobster".... See also http://www.ac-strasbourg.fr/pedago/lettres/lecture/Sartrebio.htm I think the story has a source as it is generally repeated. Fred Bauder 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, a source cited in http://www.pd.org/~chea/Perforations/perf20/michaux.html "Simone de Beauvoir reports in "The Prime of Life", pp. 169-170, that Jean-Paul Sartre (master of French phenomenological philosophy and subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize) had a medically supervised mescaline injection in 1935 along with an intern. Sartre reported seeing lobsters, orangutans, and houses gnashing their jaws - and the intern reported virtually romping through a meadow full of nymphs." That is footnote 3, a source for "mescaline engendered thought". Fred Bauder 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Nausea_(book)#Psychedelic_connection Fred Bauder 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have removed, "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs. Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results.[citation needed]". There is no source whatever for the first sentence and I know only of the case of Aldous Huxley, Castananda's reports, being fiction, do not count. I think it more likely that philosophers who experiment with psychedelics are rather rare. I have, to my own satisfaction, established that Satre had an isolated mescaline experience, but one experience does not support the proposition being advanced, that "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs" Fred Bauder 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phenomenal relaities->worldviews

I have changed "phenomenal realities" to "worldviews" in the "fact section.

The use of the word "reality" for an individual perspective can lead to confusion, as well explained in the "Reality, worldviews, and theories of reality" section. It also conflicts with the definition given in the introduction.1Z 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Report

For those who don't know, this page is protected because it was mentioned on The Colbert Report last week. Also I want to bring it to the attention of the admins that disambiguation pages need to be checked as well. --Voidvector 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but what pages are you talking about? John Reaves (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Reality (disambiguation), seems they are still fully locked. --Voidvector 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I really have no idea why the talk page was locked. shaaaame on wikipedia. Skhatri2005 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

--68.184.85.150 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)== Why not section on reality as a commodity? ==

Perhaps the fact that so many people are interested in vandalising the main article illustrates the fact that there is some validity to reality as a comodity? Could a section of the main article be developed that uses relevant examples throughout history. Egyptian politics to the making of the Bible to modern media: examples abound that could be verified and cited.

Greenmrt 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on postmodern/post-structuralist "consensus reality" says the same as Colbert using more complicated words. 91.4.71.234 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On his show Colbert belittled the Wikipedia while suggesting this little bit of vandalism. Although it was done as a joke, humorously adding his comment would be counterproductive. Describing the event on The Colbert Report or even Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a section on it if you could establish how it is notable. This isn't a case of using an existing word, this is Colbert making a specific claim that hasn't been picked up by anyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals on Colbert's claim, then make a note of it. Otherwise, it is original research. --Voidvector 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the person editing references to Microsoft on wikipedia for money that prompted Colbert to make this statement probably got off easier than the people who edit this page. --12.206.4.89 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that M$ got off easier than WP. 1Z 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I love Microsoft. I love Stephen Colbert. Reality has become a commodity. Microsoft owns that commodity. Therefore, if Microsoft tells me it is awesome then it is. Because as stated earlier, Microsoft decides what is real, and what isn't.

The entire article of reality is based almost entirely on people's philosophies. The "Reality as a Commodity" joke on Stephen Colbert is, in essence, another philosophy regarding modern day reality. Why not add it to the section dealing with philosophies of reality? Immortal321 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been picked up by anyone else. We're not here to document every single person's attitude towards reality. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
By "anyone else" you mean, besides the hundreds of persons who are going to edit this entry every other week? 194.158.104.36 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

there is a section on "what reality might not be" why not make a section on what it might be. you can quote theories, including colbert's theory that reality is a commodity.

I would suggest people take a look at WP:NEO. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and not everything that is said is encyclopedic. If, 10 ten years from now, the phrase has become a philosophical movement, with published sources to back it up, then it would be ok under wikipedia policy to add it. Otherwise, no, and such attempts to compromise the article are considered vandalism. And please don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~) Thanks, Danski14 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don;t think anyone has totally put this into perspective for those who don't know... Stephen Colbert told people to put "reality is a commodity" on this page it has nothing to do with how people actually feel about the subject. He did the same thing with the elephants page (did you know they;ve tripled in population?). It's frickin hilarious... but it ain;t encyclopedic.--68.184.85.150 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
It's simple: Wikipedia Is not a soapbox that anyone can edit willy-nilly. For that, go to uncyclopedia. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia with policies (see WP:5 for an overview of them). It is a serious project to help "make the internet not suck" and organize and share human knowledge. Danski14 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I like Colbert a lot, but when he encourages vandalism (or even participates directly in it)(even when it is satirical), he becomes a vandal himself, and lowers himself to the realm of those who spray graffiti on walls. I think he lost a lot of good viewers because of his actions. But I digress.. this is not a discussion ground for Colbert's character. Danski14 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I view Colbert's actions as more of a challenge to wikipedia. Not necessarily outright vandalism.--Dr who1975 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Please don't point people to vandalize Uncyclopedia. Uncyc is serious satire. An article claiming that reality is a commodity would be great, but replacing the page with just "Reality has become a commodity" would get reverted and protected just as fast on Uncyc as on WP, and possibly faster. 71.2.72.28 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (an Uncyclopedian)
Sorry about that. I am now a fan of the great work you guys do. I also agree with Dr. Whos comment above. Danski14(talk) 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the objection to this edit? (Reality) I think it makes the page better. Deepstratagem 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a different way of expressing Phillip K Dick's idea. It is a way off sneaking the vandalism back onto the page. The notability of Colbert has been discussed at length and rejected. 1Z 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
But is it really vandalism if it is not intended as such? It's as if you knew my motive, when in reality I just like the real, concise and subtly humorous overtone to the quotation. (i.e. in reality, it doesn't have to say anything about Colbert, we can just quote him tacitly with a reference). Besides, just because Colbert said it, doesn't mean it's wrong or irrelevant). I think you are all too sensitized to the word Colbert and have developed a lacuna that blinds you from seeing improvement when adjacent to Colbert. Deepstratagem 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Regardless your intent, the edit was incorrect on a factual/citational level. He's not Dr. Stephen Colbert, he's Dr.h.c. Stephen Colbert, see Honorary degree for the proper way to signify an honorary degree.
I suppose it's possible you meant the fictional Stephen Colbert (character) (he did make the quoted comment in-persona) who holds a non-honorary D.F.A. (inspired by the actor's honorary one), but in that case his title should have been D.F.A Stephen Colbert.
Either way it was incorrect. The latter especially so because I don't think we should be using in-fiction academic credentials to confer authority on out-fiction articles (there's probably a wiki-standard against it) and anecdotally I know Alan Alda gets enormously frustrated with hospital staff because they are used to thinking of him as a Doctor of Medicine, and so they leave all the big words in when eplaining things.  ;-)
( I do think that this article needs some sprucing up, but I have almost no user history outside of Wikia, so my suggestion to edit a heavily contested article carries very little weight? Maybe I'll put together a formal proposal of changes or something... ) -Deriksmith 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it isn't "really" vandalism, it lacks notability, etc. 1Z 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm fully protecting this page

Guys, I'm temporarily giving this page full protection. The amount of vandalism going on here is horrendous, even after the page was given semiprotection. I hope that it will cause these vandals to give up. There hasn't been a good faith edit in months. - Richard Cavell 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • What the frig is going on, why are unlogged IP's editing this page if it is fully protected? Kntrabssi 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Protection expired yesterday. I suggest at least semi-protect for a while. Also Reality (disambiguation). [1] Danski14(talk) 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • At the very least, semiprotection. This article and the Elephant article have become giant targets of vandalism since Colbert's show. Kntrabssi 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
        • And by "vandals" you mean "people redefining their own reality" right? Why do you think so many people keep editing this page, despite all the protecting going around? They do it because they believe in it. We are the man of the year, and we plan to redefine our reality as we see fit. Same reason the movie "The Matrix" spawned such a cult, because people relate to the concept of defining their own reality. We don't have to wait for others to tell us what we must think (so-called peer-reviewed philisophical papers).194.158.104.36 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Well, until you can provide some kind of reliable source for this, than it won't be included here. See WP:NPOV.
Besides, if you can redefine your own reality, it should be no problem for you to redefine the article as unblocked. But perhaps you find reality strangely resistant to your redefinitions? (Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls). Banno 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The sheer fact that you had to block edits to that page proves our point. We say that in this age of information, reality has become a commodity. You disagree and try to apply your own definition of reality, arguing that it is accepted by a greater number of people. And you didn't do so by convincing the other part, you did so by removing our theory from its support (the page), perhaps even purging logs and erasing all trace of it to the point one could argue it ever existed. Proving our point that reality has, indeed, become a commodity.
              • No it doesn't. All it proves is that you've been reverted (and have no real insight or contribution to this encyclopedia). Richiar 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-contradictory

The second sentence of the article says: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis."

Maybe I'm not understanding it properly, but the end of that sentence doesn't make sense to me. What does "apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, etc" mean?

I think the sentence would work just fine as: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable or comprehensible."

If I'm not understanding the purpose of the "self-contradictory" phrase, then could the sentence be revised to clarify its meaning? -- Danny (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's responded, so I'm going to edit the sentence. -- Danny (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs

This page really needs to be protected to stop people from changing it to the commodity thing. Its the only way to ensure this stops.Silver seren 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It recently came out of a long period of protection 1Z 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I realize that, but it probably needs it almost permanently because people aren't letting up on the vandalism.Silver seren 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It needs improvement, too. 1Z 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
o_o...that was a large chunk you deleted. I think they'll get mad.Silver seren 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Dick Quote

The Philip K. Dick quote is unsourced. I found the same statement in Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality. If anyone can supply the date of the Dick quote, I can check to see which one came first. Diogenes 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added more definitions of reaity

The "definition of reality" seemed a bit simplistic: I added a note with an array of definitions to add more dimension to the definition. Richiar 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After reflecting on this I realized it was simpler and more aesthetic to put in an external link. Richiar 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

HEY, SOMEONE HAS VANDALIZED THIS ARTICLE! DO SOMETHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.144.75.5 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)