"Reality is an activity of the most august imagination"

[Timmy]

when you bump your head against a wall, do you stubbornly keep walking into it arguing that nothing is ever real so this wall must just be a figment of your imagination that can be simply wished away? Or do you make the induction that the wall exists as an absolute apart from what you think of it and you have no choice but to adapt to it.

when someone prods a person with a spear, do you refrain from objecting to the action, because whatever scenario your mind comes up with is as good as any other, and the person writhing in pain could just as well be some imitation of a real conscious person in pain? Or do you induce that some scenarios are more likely real than others, and your ability to distinguish real scenarios from fictive ones could mean the difference between the anguish endured by a really existing conscious person and the relief of their anguish?

any philosophy that denies the existence of an independent reality is irreconcilable with practical and ethical action and for that reason void of convincing power. this undermines the very purpose of ever engaging in philosophy in the first place.

i don't preclude love from the conception of reality. Reality is both abstract and concrete. Love is abstract, but real, in as far as it exists.

I think we are quibbling over semantics and emphasis more-so than we are disagreeing over anything fundamental.

I agree that most (though not all) of us would find it difficult to ignore being stabbed by a spear. This does not, however, change the fact that the experience of pain (like all perceptions and experiences) is a subjective construct of the mind. Philosophers refer to the theory of "reality" that you seem to be describing as "consensus reality." Our minds are sufficiently similar that we often interpret "reality" the same way that others do (or at least, our minds suggest to us that we and others are interpreting events in a similar way).

However, to Silverchris' point -- and hopefully I'm interpreting him correctly -- "consensus reality" only accounts for a sliver of what most people understand to mean reality. As you said yourself, reality writ large consists of things both concrete and abstract. While a consensus interpretation of the concrete aspects (the Se/Si aspects) of a thing or event generally will exist, consensus is much less common when it comes to assigning meaning/significance (the Ne/Ni aspects) to these same things/events. For instance, all of the participants at a public execution may readily agree that they are partaking in a man's hanging, but are likely to disagree vehemently over the significance/meaning of the hanging. Whereas the executioner may understand the hanging to signify force of justice prevailing over evil, the victim may understand his hanging to signify evil in the guise of cruel and barbaric tradition overcoming justice. Meanwhile, a spectator to the hanging may conclude that the event represents a glorious sacrifice to his bloodthirsty god. Each of these individuals would likely consider the significance they attach to the hanging (the non-consensus abstract) to be as much a feature of their reality as the hanging itself (the consensus concrete). I suspect this is especially true of Se/Ni types, since Ni (a field function) leads a person to see himself as part of his abstract perceptions (as contrasted with Ne, which leads a person to see the abstract as distinct from him/herself--or so the theory goes).

Just as there is such a thing as consensus and non-consensus reality (aspects of perception), likewise there is such a thing as consensus and non-consensus morality (aspects of judgment). Which is to say, I absolutely believe that it is possible to be a moral individual without drawing upon shared (consensus) moral principles, much less a shared understanding of reality. At this point I think we're talking classic Fe/Ti vs Te/Fi differences, with Fe/Ti types more inclined to favor consensus forms of reality. Please don't misunderstand me, I don't mean to imply that Fe/Ti types uncritically accept popular moral/theoretical frameworks on the basis of their widespread acceptance or their seeming authoritativeness (although in my experience this can be a tendency of Fe types...and bolt). I simply mean that Fe/Ti types seek to develop an ethical framework that could be explained to others via appeal to consensus reality (logic in this instance), whereas this is less true of Te/Fi types.

Given our differences in perspective, I suppose its no surprise you're alpha and I'm gamma.

In any event, I hope you see my point. Sorry if that was incomprehensible.

[krieger]

Reality is not the same thing as a consensus view. To say that it is is to imply that a consensus view can not be wrong.

[Timmy]

Reality is not the same thing as a consensus view. To say that it is is to imply that a consensus view can not be wrong.

Well then I frankly don't have a clue what you think reality means.

[krieger]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality

–noun, plural -ties for 3, 5–7.
1. the state or quality of being real.
2. resemblance to what is real.
3. a real thing or fact.
4. real things, facts, or events taken as a whole; state of affairs: the reality of the business world; vacationing to escape reality.
5. Philosophy .
a. something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.
b. something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.
6. something that is real.
7. something that constitutes a real or actual thing, as distinguished from something that is merely apparent.
—Idiom
8. in reality, in fact or truth; actually: brave in appearance, but in reality a coward.

[krieger]

— n , pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. See also conceptualism Compare appearance the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them
5. in reality actually; in fact

[Timmy]

— n , pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. See also conceptualism Compare appearance the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them
5. in reality actually; in fact

I'll try not to belabor the point cause we're starting to go in circles, but to my way of thinking, belief in something that exists independent of human awareness amounts either to religiosity or bad metaphysics. While I certainly wouldn't label religion as less than real (my working definition of reality is different from yours), to label any individual's religious beliefs, his "reality," as "the one and only reality" strikes me as preposterous. In short, reality defined as "that which exists independent of human awareness" has no comprehensible meaning or significance. You might as well define it as "that which cannot be defined." It's philosophical gibberish, and it makes no sense to argue for or against it's existence.

[Crispy]

Lol if there was no one true reality all theories we have would be false or non applicable which is not the case. It is true that noone can conceive accurately of the whole reality but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And surely you can't say consensus creates the one true reality, that's just silly.

[crazedrat]

— n , pl -ties
1. the state of things as they are or appear to be, rather than as one might wish them to be
2. something that is real
3. the state of being real
4. philosophy
a. that which exists, independent of human awareness
b. See also conceptualism Compare appearance the totality of facts as they are independent of human awareness of them
5. in reality actually; in fact

It exists independent of human awareness, but that doesnt mean we can't perceive it. It just means it doesnt rely on our awareness of it to exist. You're interpreting the sentence wrongly.

Also, it's not required you perceive all of reality in order to have glimpsed any of it.

Reality is not independent of perception. Perception is part of reality. Our perceptions are real. Reality is also a statement directly about perception. Without perception there can be no distinguishment between the real and the unreal, and the concept of reality would not exist. But its impossible for there to be a world without perception, so the whole discussion is flawed to begin with.

[krieger]

It exists independent of human awareness, but that doesnt mean awareness can't perceive it.

i never implied anything along those lines.