Exist vs. Real

[Kyuuketsuki]

Useless only if you are looking for a final say. Which no matter the word or age of the word SOMEBODY will have a slightly different definition.

They are useless (IOW no better than a guide) when contentious subjects are being discussed.

Dictionary definitions serve as a starting point, so now that we have said all this how does my interpretation fail because I am 'redefining the word'.

Agreed but to my mind you didn't use it that way, you referenced your entire argument at that point based on the definition you gave.

Is it bad to redefine or is it impossible not too? All you have said leads me to believe you don't think any definition has any value because others will always disagree.

I think definitions (on subjects like this) have to be based on logic and/or be agreed (that there has to be consensus) ... to my mind you cannot have "real" defined as something with exceptions because that implies that the someone who defined it either has an agenda or that they have over-thought it. In the specific case of your definition of "real" I had immediate reservations in that it sounded EXACTLY like someone was manipulating the definition to suit a specific agenda ... that's why I railed against it.

Kyu

[Demonaura]

I agree it could have been worded better but, I see no reason your argument should only be applied to contentious subjects.

You also have said a different thing here, before you said you disagreed with it because I was apparently redefining a word. Now you are saying you disagree because I was using it to serve an agenda (or at least it was written in a manner that implied that).

I cannot see what this agenda would be however, I merely explained the definitions as I see them both. Real being that which is a part of our testable world, existence being a more broad term that includes everything that is real as well as that which is not actually real (characters in a book would exist but, are not real, they exist as fiction). My version of 'real' has no exeptions except for that which is not a part of reality, hence the use of the word 'real'.

We define words to facilitate communication, for this purpose I sought to clarify those two words. Oh, and that I was under the impression it was the whole point of the bloody thread

[Kyuuketsuki]

You also have said a different thing here, before you said you disagreed with it because I was apparently redefining a word. Now you are saying you disagree because I was using it to serve an agenda (or at least it was written in a manner that implied that).

No I said whoever defined it was using it in that way ... maybe you are too? No idea!

My version of 'real' has no exeptions except for that which is not a part of reality, hence the use of the word 'real'.

Why didn't you stick to that then?

We define words to facilitate communication, for this purpose I sought to clarify those two words. Oh, and that I was under the impression it was the whole point of the bloody thread

Oh indeed hence my initial answer, "No ... next?" (or some such)!

Kyu

[Demonaura]

I think one of us is missing something, I'm not implying you either I mean it as I say it.

When did I change my definition?

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think one of us is missing something, I'm not implying you either I mean it as I say it.

If you mean to say that definition of "real" (the one you gave) is correct then I think you are wrong. If not where's the problem?

When did I change my definition?

I don't recall saying you did.

Kyu

[Demonaura]

My version of 'real' has no exeptions except for that which is not a part of reality, hence the use of the word 'real'.

Why didn't you stick to that then?

I thought it was what you meant with that.

I can only imagine real meaning that which exists in reality, how would you define it Kyuu?

[Edwardo Piet]

Even the imaginary exists in our brains (the part that's our "imagination") .

Just not in external 'reality'.

EvF

[Kyuuketsuki]

Why didn't you stick to that then?

I can only imagine real meaning that which exists in reality, how would you define it Kyuu?

I suppose real is what can be (potentially or otherwise) empirically measured/detected (tested) in part or whole. Broadly speaking anything science can test and, let's be brutally honest here, there's not a whole lot of anything else!

Kyu

[fr0d0]

Thought is an exception though, unless you apply some serious diversionary tactics.

[LEDO]

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.