I think the Buddha would've remained silent if he were asked this question. I wonder why? I suppose, if I were to second guess the Buddha, this question can't be answered in a way that would put the issue to rest. Again, I wonder why? Perhaps, its an unknowable but what makes it so? Can I answer the question "what does the message say?" with confidence when the messenger's honesty has been called into question?

Only as reference tools for grounding us in actual reality.

What is reality? — Eremit

The encompassing of reason that necessarily cannot itself be encompassed by reasoning.

How should we call that which is beyond described reality?

Undescribed reality.

Should we call it?

It always already calls us (into question). How we respond either dignifies or destroys us.

Should we care about it? If it's beyond our reason, beyond the world we know and world we live in, why should we care about it?

Constraints also enable, horizons orient. Besides, reality hurts - often fatally - the careless.

What I'm talking about is our unconsciousness as a part of our psyche, a part from w[hi]ch our consciousness (and reason) emerged. If we could equate our unconsciousness with reality beyond, should we then care about it?

The alternative - not to care, care-less-ness - is maladaptive and, as I point out above, often hazardous.

What are your thoughts on all this? On unconsciousness and reality beyond? On their relatedness with us, as human beings, and existence in general?

From a recent thread What is "Real"? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/449183 here's my previous post on this topic ... Tell me what you think about (my three rabbit-holes down to not-quite-Wonderland) what I think.

What is reality? Everything that exists, that has a being. Everything that can be grasped by reason and somehow perceived. — Eremit

What is reality? Reality is the totality of everything that surrounds me, everything that has the capacity to be sensed or to be thought about by me, everything that I can change by my thoughts or actions.

The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it is whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all (of our) rational categories and techniques of control (e.g. ambiguity, transfinitude, contingency, uncertainty, randomness). The real encompasses reason (Jaspers) and itself cannot be encompassed (Spinoza / Cantor) ... like that 'void within which all atoms swirl' (Epicurus). Thus, Rosset's principle of 'indispensible yet insufficient' reason (à la Zapffe, Camus, Meillassoux-Brassier). — 180 Proof

Depressing!

Any way you can make it less morose? :chin: Is there a silver lining in the sense there's more to reality than needing to be in touch with it just to avoid injury and fatality? I'd like you to take a moment and look at the brighter side of reality, if there's one. What do you see?

Depressing! — TheMadFool

I think that depends on whether (y/our) expectations are realistic or not (e.g. idealistic).

Any way you can make it less morose? :chin: Is there a silver lining in the sense there's more to reality than needing to be in touch with it just to avoid injury and fatality?

'Reality' isn't anthropic or even biophilic.

I'd like you to take a moment and look at the brighter side of reality, if there's one. What do you see?

(Local) Reality's regularities are computable and, therefore, explicable (if only approximately, non-exhaustively). Science - though inherently incomplete, probabilistic & fallibilist - is, besides music, the only magic that works.

There are, for us h sapiens, two 'realities'. There is the inner reality, our mental 'map' of that which lies outside our bodies. Then there's the outer 'reality' which we perceive through our senses and which informs our mental 'map'. That there is an outer reality which impacts us can be demonstrated by dropping a brick on our toe.

As an aside, I've liked the statement that science seeks to describe outer reality while the arts seek to describe our inner reality.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

If we could equate our unconsciousness with reality beyond, should we then care about it? — Eremit

I guess you are saying that part of our mind that is unconscious somehow extends to that which we cannot perceive in our every day life. That what we can perceive is the visible universe, that what we cannot perceive is something beyond, like something that's outside the universe.

I guess maybe you can say what we cannot perceive are some kind of minds or mind or an eternal mind that may reside outside of the universe.

Spiritual things could reside outside of the universe.

Somehow our unconscious mind extends to these non-perceivable things? Does our unconscious mind "touch" these things somehow or is it "connected" to these things some how?

Maybe. I don't know. Maybe the unconscious mind is more of a wanderer then the conscious mind. And it's always unconsciously wondering about these things.

Should we concern ourselves with these things?

I think that whether you think we should or we shouldn't, your mind will naturally concern itself with these things (both conscious and unconscious mind). Maybe not now, but at some point it will. And then it will grow tired of it, because maybe it cannot find a meaningful solution or maybe it did find a meaningful solution, and is now ready to move on to other things. Like paying your bills or something. And then the cycle will continue again. Your mind (conscious or unconscious) will again concern itself with other-worldly things and then again the time will come when it's time to mow the grass. Etc ...

Edit: to add to this. Maybe eventually, if you continue to think about reality beyond reality, you can achieve a certain frame of mind. So maybe there is a reason to do it. Or maybe not. Idk.

reality beyond? — Eremit

It seems to me here that this concept of yours is practically the metaphysical world o ideas, something incomprehensible that we - humans - try to understand and project in the world. If something like this exists, the fact that we are stuck with "Being" makes it impossible for us to conceive and experience the "Non Being". Its almost "the One" of Plotinus:

"Once you have uttered 'The Good' - the concept - add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency."

How should we call that which is beyond described reality?

Undescribed reality. — 180 Proof

Well, that was light work. I thought I was going to have to give my whole day to this thread on "deepity."

I think that depends on whether (y/our) expectations are realistic or not (e.g. idealistic). — 180 Proof

Thanks! My issue is with the general tendency among people to define/describe reality negatively in the sense that it's always in the form of a warning, "be real unless <insert unpleasant consequences>" and not positively in the sense that to be in touch with reality is a happy, pleasant state. It's like defining roses only by the painfully sharp thorns and completely ignoring the exquisitely gorgeous blossoms.

Reality' isn't anthropic or even biophilic. — 180 Proof

But it isn't completely anthrophobic or biophobic either, right?

I suppose I'm asking, "why the constant realistic pessimistic attitude toward reality?"

But [reality] isn't completely anthrophobic or biophobic either, right? — TheMadFool

Sure. As per the mediocrity principle.

I suppose I'm asking, "why the constant realistic pessimistic attitude toward reality?"

The Second Law of Thermodynamics: global disorder (i.e. complexity, proximity-to-maximum-equilibrium) never decreases.

Sure. As per the mediocrity principle.

I suppose I'm asking, "why the constant realistic pessimistic attitude toward reality?"
The Second Law of Thermodynamics: global disorder (i.e. complexity, proximity-to-maximum-equilibrium) never decreases. — 180 Proof

You took the words right out of my mouth. Entropy is a pain. There being innumerable ways for thing to go wrong and usually only a handful of ways for things to go right, to be realistic = to be pessimistic. :sad:

Do you think there's a strategy that could make optimism a viable option? Imagine if I don't care what happens; anything would be acceptable to me and I'll never face disappointment in my life, granting me and others who adopt a similar attitude full rights to be optimistic. :grin:

Do you think there's a strategy that could make optimism a viable option? — TheMadFool

I reject "optimism". Courage is my preferred adaptive stance (rehearsed-reinforced daily via sisyphusian reflective, cognitive, ethical & existential acts of defiance). Epicurus-Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe-Camus, Albert Murray et al are some (varied) exemplars.

I reject "optimism". Courage is my preferred adaptive conduct (rehearsed-reinforced daily via sisyphusian reflective, cognitive, ethical & existential acts of defiance). Epicurus-Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe-Camus, Albert Murray et al are some (varied) exemplars. — 180 Proof

:up: I feel like I committed a fallacy when I said I could become an optimist by not caring what happens.

Can you spot it?

Are optimism and pessimism subjective enough to allow that much freedom? Can I switch from one to the other merely by changing my preferences?

I reject "optimism". Courage is my preferred adaptive conduct — 180 Proof

The philosopher has to be capable of comprehending conditions that are largely hostile to his being. Where courage is lacking there the mind constructs fantasies, delusions of reality to make it more palatable. Where are the philosophers of courage? We don't need more abstractors, we need more courageous and tough-minded thinkers!

The philosopher has to be capable of comprehending conditions that are largely hostile to his being. Where courage is lacking there the mind constructs fantasies, delusions of reality to make it more palatable. Where are the philosophers of courage? We don't need more abstractors, we need more courageous and tough-minded thinkers! — JerseyFlight

Agreed. I dropped some names previously, and there are quite a few more - e.g. Galileo, Rosset, Nietzsche, Cioran, Lucretius, Diogenes of Sinope, Sextus Empiricus, d'Holbach, Darwin, Paine, Feuerbach, Peirce, Kropotkin, Gramsci, Wittgenstein, Arendt, West, et al - who teach by their varied examples courageous philosophies moreso than "philosophies of courage".

Absolutely, all of them philosophers. :up: :smile:
You hit the nail on the head with courage.

Sorry to hound you like this but I desperately need someone to give me a well thought out response to what I believe raises an important issue regarding the three attitudes toward reality viz. 1) Pessimist, 2) Optimist, and 3) Realist.

You really hit the bulls eye when you brought up entropy and the mediocrity principle - they makes pessimism the most reasonable attitude to adopt to life. It's as if to be realist one has to be a pessimist. I also give a thumbs-up to your idea of constant courage and existential defiance in the face of such mediocre odds we have.

One thing though. There's the small matter of, well, the devil. Not that I believe in him but as the archetypical anarchist, el diablo wishes, hopes, for chaos to prevail i.e. maximum entropy figures at the top of the devil's wishlist. I daresay there are quite a number of people with diabolical inclinations out there who would like nothing better than to see our most elaborate plans fail pathetically. The devil, such people, form a category of their own, a category that desires higher entropic states and as odd as it sounds, to them success is failure.

Doesn't this mean that the devil and those who wish chaos in the world are favored by chance? After all, entropy is always going to be on their side and since increased entropy is what the devil and such folks desire, they have much to look forward to. Mathematically, the probability of disappointment for the devil and anarchists is going to be so negligible that they might as well engage in celebratory revelry 24/7. In other words, the devil and people whom I've labeled anarchists are fully justified to be optimists.

However, there seems to be a sense in which this is wrong. Optimism and pessimism aren't attitudes per se, attitudes that can be picked up or thrown away simply on the basis of what one thinks of as desirable or not. Au contraire, optimism is the belief that things in general will tend toward the good and pessimism, being the opposite, is the belief that outcomes, on balance, will usually be bad. Good and bad are ideas that are fixed and unalterable - no change in attitude is ever going to affect their meaning in ways that good could be bad and vice versa. In other words, optimism and pessimism are about the fixed, non-negotiable, nature of the outcomes themselves, specifically whether they're good or bad and I use "good" and "bad" in a moral sense, inclusive of all subsequent meanings associated with the good and the bad.

In summary, yes, the devil and his anarchist band of followers will find it nigh impossible to remember a day when they were disappointed but the "positive" attitude of always having their expectations pan out that develops out of this track record isn't optimism.

What say you?

What I'm talking about is our unconsciousness as a part of our psyche, a part from witch our consciousness (and reason) emerged. If we could equate our unconsciousness with reality beyond, should we then care about it? — Eremit

People having bothered with stuff like this have probably contributed to the enlightenment, the scientific process and stuff and thereby granted me a life already far longer than that for humans through history so I say - shoot!

Reality (...) Everything that can be grasped by reason — Eremit

reality beyond, is the ground of all existence — Eremit

How does one reason to the ground of all existence, when such ground is excluded from that which is within the “grasp” of reason?

It appears to be nothing more than “...a lame appeal to a logical condition, which is no doubt a necessary condition of the existence of the conception, but is far from being sufficient for the real objective possibility (of it)...”, insofar as reality, as stated, in conjunction with the validity of the complementary nature of human reason itself, permits the notion of “beyond reality”, even at the expense of knowing anything about it, which of course, leaves the second assertion without proper warrant.

I'll preface my reply with this

The only ism that has justified itself is pessimism. — George Orwell

e.g. this old 'anti-optimist' rant :point: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/346349

and an excerpt from another old post:

"'What's my philosophy?' Don't be a fool (or an asshole) - minimize frustrations by Reflectively aligning expectations with The Real - is the whole of philosophy; the rest, like the Rabbi says, is commentary." ~180 Proof

three attitudes toward reality viz. 1) ]Pessimist, 2) Optimist, and 3) Realist.

[ ... ]

optimism is the belief that things in general will tend toward the good and pessimism, being [the] opposite, is the belief that outcomes, on balance, will usually be bad. — TheMadFool

As I've pointed out elsewhere, I interpret these "attitudes" as risks for which we can prepare ourselves rather than outcomes independent of any actions we take; thus:

We are - will be - safe. (optimist)

We are not - will not be - safe. (pessimist)

We are safe - until we are not. (realist absurdist)

are how I read these stances.

You really hit the bulls eye when you brought up entropy and the mediocrity principle - they makes pessimism the most reasonable attitude to adopt to life.

I disagree. The pessimist, not quite a paranoid (usually), is egocentric in so far as he thinks reality is somehow biased against him; that is, he expects nature isn't 'mediocre' and that she never throws fair dice as far as (his) life is concerned. The most reasonable attitude, as you say, is that reality is indifferent to all attitudes, reasonable or not, which are merely self-serving habits-of-mind that either work (minimizing frustrations) to varying degrees or not at all.

... such mediocre odds we have of our plans ever succeeding.

This is futility and has nothing to do with entropy, etc.

... maximum entropy figures at the top of the devil's wishlist. I daresay there are quite a number of people out there who would like nothing better than to see our most elaborate plans fail pathetically. The devil, such people form a category that desires higher entropic states and as odd as it sounds, to them success is failure.

Doesn't this mean that the devil and those who wish chaos in the world are favored by chance?

No. Those "who wish chaos" where "plans fail pathetically" due to "higher entropic states" are also subject to the universe's free fall (so to speak) or "strange attraction" ever inexorably, towards "maximum entropy". It doesn't matter what they, "the devil" or anybody "desires", only what we/they do in spite of constant resistance from and indifference of the real.

In other words, the devil and people whom I've labeled anarchists are fully justified to be optimists.

I don't think so. You've described them, Fool, as more akin to fatalists (re: futilitarians) than optimists (re: placebo/fetish-dependent deniers). Besides, chaos ain't chaos unless it cannibalizes itself first and last.

:death: :flower:

Something of a latter-day "anarchist" (Kropotkin, Chomsky, Schweickart), I've often styled myself a cheerful pessimist since my expectations are almost always worse than whatever actually happens. (Epictetus). This stance, however, is not optimism. A happy warrior is not an optimist (Marcus Aurelius). However, I prefer absurdist, with all its connotations, which, for this topic, is less confusing and more apt (Epicurus, Zapffe, Rosset).

I reject "optimism". Courage is my preferred adaptive conduct (rehearsed-reinforced daily via sisyphusian reflective, cognitive, ethical & existential acts of defiance). Epicurus-Epictetus, Spinoza, Zapffe-Camus, Albert Murray et al are some (varied) exemplars. — 180 Proof

Absolutely and amen. Against the intractable, the inevitable, the inexorable; against fate itself, one arrays the battle flags of possible triumph and nobility. Augustine had it approximately right. Give me strife, the αγων - the arena for contest attended by the gods - and the glorious defeat. But not too much and not right now!

:up: :ok: Thanks.

I think it's worth fighting for a better future because there is at least a chance, and fighting for that chance is what it means to be an ethical person. Is pessimism for you an attitude that psychologically prepares you for the (likely) worst outcome? I can understand that position. But pessimist philosophers appear to reiterate that there is no point in any kind of hope. Now we can be pedantic about the definition of hope, but if I was sure it was definitely zero, I wouldn't bother fighting for a better society. But I'm not certain, and I think it's worth fighting for just like previous people who probably had their confidence beaten down constantly but actually succeeded in creating a better society. But you have to believe in the possibility of a chance of success (hope) for that reasoning to work.

Augustine had it approximately right. Give me strife, the αγων - the arena for contest attended by the gods - and the glorious defeat. But not too much and not right now! — tim wood

Marcus Aurelius speaks clearer to me: "The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way." :wink:

But pessimist philosophers appear to reiterate that there is no point in any kind of hope. Now we can be pedantic about the definition of hope, but if I was sure it was definitely zero, I wouldn't bother fighting for a better society — Saphsin

There is no future but the present.

Songs end yet are still sweetly sung. Hunger always returns yet we often relish a meal as if - even if - it's our last. Children play in bombed-out rubble and ruins with abandon. Angry partners still make (their most) passionate love. And so on ... "Hope", my friend, is empty bullshit, futile & undignifying.

This is why courage matters most - the reason to fight here and now is because there is no alternative except 'humiliation here and now', succumbing in denial (Becker) to the exigencies of the moment, to cowardly retreat or surrender unscathed; the "fighting" - struggle - is (usually) all there is; remember Sisyphus ----

Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present. — Albert Camus

A less haughty, more homespun, corollary:

It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. — Mark Twain

As I've pointed out previously, my focus, or stance, is absurdist and not (merely) "pessimist". Memento mori :death: (solitaire) lucidly drives memento vivere :flower: (solidaire) - courage: sapere aude: amor fati: jouissance (Spinoza, Rosset).

I just don't know what you're referring to, you're using these words in a way that's kind of alien to me. When people are organizing to pass policies that benefit lives, they spend months or even years on it, and they have structured planned strategies to do it. (even local organizing still takes dedication over long periods of time) There's a chance of success or there isn't. If there's no chance of success, work on organizing for something else or stay home and try to enjoy your life as best as you can. But people work on projects because they see reasons for a better outcome than whatever exists now.

Okay.

Your response, I like the way it sounds. All the stuff about working hard in living in the present rather than pinning your desires onto dreams. But it sounds to me you're meshing different issues into one pessimistic world vies. Working on politics is about long term strategized dedication to future outcomes. I'm open to a different interpretation if it makes sense.

How should we call that which is beyond described reality? Should we call it? Should we care about it? If it's beyond our reason, beyond the world we know and world we live in, why should we care about it? — Eremit

Nothing is "beyond Reason" --- if it is allowed to roam freely, and restrained only by the long leash of Experience. Human Reason is like a dog's Nose : it's always sniffing around for things unseen. Sometimes it bumps into a Porcupine, but more often it leads to tasty "Pork". Both have real consequences.

Should we care about anything that is beyond our horizon? Common people are content with their own local reality. But Philosophers & Scientists & Pioneers have always been motivated to go beyond mundane reality to explore the exotic terra incognita over the horizon., where be dragons & mysteries & secrets (potential knowledge). But the question remains : "why should we care" about such "impractical" & "dangerous" things & ideas? Why go to Mars?

In Physics, we call such things "keys to progress". In Metaphysics, we call them "keys to enlightenment". In my own physics/meta-physics thesis, based on the ubiquitous role of Information in the real world and in the imaginary realms, I call "that which is beyond described reality" Ideality. Hard Realists, who disparage ghostly Idealism, may be afraid of the dragons of Myth & Mysticism. But, some of us are driven to explore the unknown in order to make known that which is not, but might be. Such an optimistic & progressive attitude may not appeal to conservatives of both Religion and Science. Some of the dangers of "the beyond reality" may be real, but some turn-out to be imaginary. So, if we proceed with appropriate caution into the Dark, we might stub our toes, but we might also reveal that which was formerly hidden. :cool:


Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum Theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find the QT scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be realized, i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. Are Dark Matter & Dark Energy real, or ideal?
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html