Exist vs. Real
July 13, 2009 at 10:01 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2009 at 10:03 pm by Ryft.)
So here is a deep ontological question with significant epistemological consequences that I would like to survey your thoughts on. And it is a two-part question because I am not sure if, or even how, they can be separated so I will ask them together: Is there a difference between 'real' and 'exist'? That is, can something be real but not exist; or conversely, can something exist but not be real?
It almost seems as though there is no difference, that these are interchangeable terms. In other words, to say something is real is to say it exists, and to say that it exists is to say it is real. So is this right? Is there no difference? What does it mean for X to be real?
One might answer, "X is real when it corresponds to reality." But that is a definition of 'true', not 'real'. If reality is a predicate of something being true, then 'real' and 'true' are different things; they cannot be identicals or interchangeable terms, for if they were then this definition of true would amount to an empty tautology (i.e., "X is true when it is true"). So if correspondence with reality is what it means for X to be true, then what does it mean for X to be real? Or to exist?
Perhaps we can say, "X is real when it has existence." But no sooner is this said than immediately the force of my aforementioned question is made evident. Should we understand that 'real' and 'exist' are two different things? Can something be real but not exist, or exist but not be real? Or are they interchangeable terms, such that "X is real" is equal to "X exists" and vice versa? What are your thoughts on this? This is something my mind was chewing on all day at work today, and I've not yet reached a conclusive position.
(The ontological implications should be obvious. The epistemological ones are a little more subtle but easily made obvious. If knowledge has anything to do with warranted true belief, and if true has anything to do with correspondence with reality... well, there it is.)
It almost seems as though there is no difference, that these are interchangeable terms. In other words, to say something is real is to say it exists, and to say that it exists is to say it is real. So is this right? Is there no difference? What does it mean for X to be real?
One might answer, "X is real when it corresponds to reality." But that is a definition of 'true', not 'real'. If reality is a predicate of something being true, then 'real' and 'true' are different things; they cannot be identicals or interchangeable terms, for if they were then this definition of true would amount to an empty tautology (i.e., "X is true when it is true"). So if correspondence with reality is what it means for X to be true, then what does it mean for X to be real? Or to exist?
Perhaps we can say, "X is real when it has existence." But no sooner is this said than immediately the force of my aforementioned question is made evident. Should we understand that 'real' and 'exist' are two different things? Can something be real but not exist, or exist but not be real? Or are they interchangeable terms, such that "X is real" is equal to "X exists" and vice versa? What are your thoughts on this? This is something my mind was chewing on all day at work today, and I've not yet reached a conclusive position.
(The ontological implications should be obvious. The epistemological ones are a little more subtle but easily made obvious. If knowledge has anything to do with warranted true belief, and if true has anything to do with correspondence with reality... well, there it is.)
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
