Exist vs. Real

[Ryft]

Dictionary definitions serve as a starting point ...

I agree with Michael Shermer on this subject (How We Believe, 1999), that dictionaries only give us how a word is used (in particular contexts; e.g., there are several uses for the word 'real') and some dictionaries will touch upon how it entered the language (e.g., etymology), but no dictionary provides us with how a word is defined. For example, in cases like this, we look to the dictionary to see how the word "real" is used in our present context, but we look to philosophy to see how the word is defined (which the dictionary will have taken into account). Given this take on the issue, I agree with Demonaura that the dictionary provides us with a place to start the conversation (contrary to Ledo's notion that it gives us a place to end the conversation).

Btw, I don't think I have seen the abbreviation 'IOW' before, what does it stand for?

IOW = In Other Words.

Are we still debating this stupid idea? The guy who started the whole thing isn't even posting anymore. He is just sitting back laughing and watching you dumbasses debating the difference between two words which define each other.

The guy who started this whole thing is not laughing at the participants, nor does he characterize them as dumbasses. I asked for the thoughts that other members might have on this issue, and they are providing it. And it is highly appreciated. The fact that some people are actively engaging each other on it is simply an added bonus; as Demonaura has demonstrated (Msg. #3) and my original post implied (e.g., "and I've not yet reached a conclusive position"), by interacting on this issue the views of one person can influence the views of another, sometimes by simply posing a question.

You think this issue is a "stupid idea." Thanks for your sharing your view. Others feel differently, and I am appreciative of their views.