nice edit. — Banno

What edit?

I find the question interesting, actually. I feel like formal aspects of poems are a type of meaning, too (the main anchor of nonsense verse like the first stanza of Jabberwocky, for example). There's a back and forth, and in poetry, where the importance of those formal aspects is institutionally raised, the word meaning and sound meaning give rise to each other in a chicken-egg relationship, only more chaotic. — Dawnstorm

I like to nail things down before I make a foray out into the playground of philosophical discussion. I've been noticing recently that sometimes makes me rigid in my need to characterize and make distinctions and unwilling to make changes. In the case of your posts, I think I'm trying to force you to classify things the same way I do, which is not reasonable. There's not need for you to try to put your ideas in the boxes I've set out, especially given your greater experience.

We engage differently with a text if we think it's a shopping list than if we think it's a poem. (I've heard of a teacher providing a shopping list as an example of a poem, encouraging analysis. It's not something I've come up with. I wish I still had the reference, but it's just something I heard in a course a long time ago.) — Dawnstorm

Forgive a bit of self-indulgence, but here is my shopping list poem:

Sixteen Fortune Cookies

You have wasted your life.
Brush your teeth three times a day.
I am not Chinese.
You are going to die.
You are a fool.
Jump. Now.
Never buy Chinese food from a restaurant where the waiters are not Chinese.
Know yourself.
You will make love to an overweight, 67-year-old civil engineer.
You will never be happy.
Drink eight glasses of water every day.
I am closer to enlightenment than you are.
Listen to your heart.
Pay me back the money you owe me.
I love you very much.
Don’t eat the cookie.

although T Clark may be. — Banno

Not me.

It seems to me you have trapped yourself in a misguided approach to the topic. — Banno

No need to go around this again.

Yes. T Clark asked "What does 'real' mean?", and when faced with an answer, backtracked to saying, "No, I asked what does 'physically real' mean".

So now we have the pretence that what is real is only the stuff of physics. Scientism reinforcing itself with poor analysis. — Banno

You have misstated my position. I have said several times in this thread that "real" and "reality" are metaphysical concepts and are not subject to empirical verification.

True.But you have to acknowledge also that this is totally filtered by our human physiology,our senses and brain.
It would be too egoistic for humans to think that their physiology is the only "right" or possible one ,that can or has been created in this vast and timeless universe. — dimosthenis9

But the concepts of "real" and "reality" were created by humans for use by humans to describe a world of human experiences. They only have meaning in relation to us.

We don't know the status of matter that isn't being measured. If that fits your conception of reality, then you're good to go. — frank

What is the status of the apple when I pick it up and take a bite?

As to your thread question,for me our reality is a form of the actual reality indeed.But there must be numerous of other forms also.Depending from the observer.
So we are sure that there is "Something" that we see as real.But it is real only to us.Notice that doesn't make it less real.Still is!But it is just one way of how that "Something" can be presented to the observer.
What we humans call real is ,imo, just a version of what actual "real" can be. — dimosthenis9

I have argued against the idea of objective reality in the past. Even so, I think it is reasonable to believe, or at least to act as though, there is a reality which is mostly stable and enduring for everyone under everyday human conditions.

I don’t disagree with your definition but is it not somewhat limited? What does it give you – the realness of quotidian objects like apples, chairs and presumably bananas? — Tom Storm

Yes, it is definitely limited. Intentionally so. I think this sets a lower limit on what usages of "real" and "reality" can be considered meaningful. If a conception of reality doesn't include everyday objects, it's useless. It's a test I can apply. Applying that test, I can reject the idea that quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality not just for subatomic particles, but also for apples and orangutans. And that is what set me off down this path.

The big fights about what is real seem to happen in a different space – Platonism, UFO’s, the voices inside the heads of people with psychosis, demons, gods, etc.

I’m looking at a glass of water in front of me which is presumably real. Last night I dreamed of a glass of water. I picked it up, I drank from it and I put it down. It seemed real too. Until I woke up. — Tom Storm

I recognize the issues you describe here as worthy of discussion, but they are not the ones I set out to address in this thread.

If you twist my arm, I will say yes, itches are real. It's just that when I talk about reality I'm usually thinking about material things. That was the main theme of this discussion for me - we can argue about what is and what isn't real, but at the very least physical things, including apples, have to be considered real or the word "real" doesn't mean anything. — T Clark

I was thinking more about my previous response to you. I wasn't really satisfied that I had said what I meant. I think the bolded text in this response I made to a comment from @Mww is the best summary of my thoughts I've written.

Most fun I’ve had with a thread in ages, so, thanks for that. — Mww

Thanks and you're welcome. I've really enjoyed it too.

Very well. But then, do you not have to resolve the logical dilemma of material things connected with a immediate and necessary causality, but itches, and the like, that are not? Seems the more consistent to reject as material reality that which has no connection to a causality, while acknowledging its being real, insofar as if it wasn’t real, with respect to the case at hand......where would you know to scratch? — Mww

If you twist my arm, I will say yes, itches are real. It's just that when I talk about reality I'm usually thinking about material things. That was the main theme of this discussion for me - we can argue about what is and what isn't real, but at the very least physical things, including apples, have to be considered real or the word "real" doesn't mean anything.

Rouse Up O Young Men of the New Age!, Kenzaburo Oe
Asleep, Banana Yoshimoto
Hunger; Pan, Knut Hamsun. — javi2541997

Where in Japan is Knut Hamsun from?

No deal. The driving force behind anyone's OP is always of interest to me. — Amity

As I noted previously:

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts. — T Clark

Just wondering whether the itch you had...assuming you admit to it....was real. And if it was, would it at the same time, be a member of reality in the way a statue or a ‘57 DeSoto, is. — Mww

I haven't really taken a position on which specific phenomena I consider real and which I don't except for apples. I guess I tend to think of reality in material terms, but that doesn't mean I reject the reality of things like itches.

Ever had an itch? — Mww

??? Ever been bit by a dead bee?

First the last sentence: my post is more about how I read the poem than about the what the poem did. I've experienced time and again that the same words can be read differently. — Dawnstorm

I intended my comment to be complimentary, even if my characterization of your post was inaccurate. I found it very helpful.

It's nasty, snotty comments like these that make me avoid your posts.

Eliot provided his own notes, — Cuthbert

Yes, the version I have has the notes, although I haven't read them. I will. Thanks.

The first goes a long way in supporting the second, I’ll wager. — Mww

Well, my post was intended as tongue-in-cheek. I doubt Banno sees me as particularly rational. As for me, I can be rational, but I'm often not, although I don't think I'm ever irrational.

The only context which I took as relevant is the one mentioned in the OP: (mis)usage vis-a-vis onrology on TPF. All the "ordinary language semantics" blather these last several pages seems to me besides the point raised in the OP. — 180 Proof

Sure, but it's clear @Banno sees his responses as relevant, so I have no objection to his bringing them up, I just don't understand how they are.

Anyway, stipulative, or working, definitions, I think, suffice for non-fallacious (non-equivocating) philosophical discussions. It seems, more or less, you agree, TC? — 180 Proof

I do agree, but, as I noted, I think Banno sees his definition as ontological, which makes me think I don't get his point.

Tom's question cuts to the chase. — Amity

If you don't analyze my motivations, I won't analyze yours.

Always found it interesting that the creator of the most ruthlessly rational figure in fiction was himself a flake. :razz:
— Tom Storm

I don't know how to explain that.
— Agent Smith

Just noticed this while replying to TClark. — Banno

Are you implying that I'm the most ruthlessly rational figure on the forum?

I don't agree. I think I have shown you how to turn the intuition expressed in the OP into something substantial, but that you haven't quite seen it. Please, have a read of the article. — Banno

It is not unusual that you and I don't see eye to eye on this type of issue. I don't see how your or Austin's formulations contribute to my understanding. Let's leave it at that.

So can you please explain to me what that difference is? — Banno

No, I don't think I can. I think we're both in the same situation. Neither of us has shown we really understand the others position. Our arguments have sort of run in parallel without ever really crossing.

YouTube has some good recordings of people like Alec Guinness reading it out. For me it helped get into the rhythm of Eliot. — Tom Storm

Thanks. I'll take a look.

Do you suppose otherwise? Or are we in agreement? — Banno

As I noted when you first brought this up earlier in the thread, I don't think it necessarily contradicts what I've written. It think it deals with a different set of issues related to real and reality.

While browsing for poems -- I have never before ventured down the path of The Wasteland until now. And I really did love it. I read an essay beforehand, knowing that the poem is notoriously difficult, and she suggested to sit at home with the sound of the poem rather than starting out with the analytic approach of trying to understand all the references, or even all the images! I can feel the cohesive mood in the poem, but the ending mystifies me. — Moliere

With your inspiration, I just read "The Wasteland" too. To paraphrase Charles Montgomery Burns - I don't know poetry, but I know what I hate, and I don't hate that. I started out using Kindle to look up references and foreign phrases, but I quit after a couple of stanzas. I figured I would just plow through without trying too hard. If I read it again I'll dig in more.

I have an association with the first stanza:

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

This is from "Two Tramps in Mud Time" by Robert Frost, one of my favorite poems:

The sun was warm but the wind was chill.
You know how it is with an April day
When the sun is out and the wind is still,
You're one month on in the middle of May.
But if you so much as dare to speak,
A cloud comes over the sunlit arch,
A wind comes off a frozen peak,
And you're two months back in the middle of March.

They share a theme in a sense, but with different tones and frames of mind.

As for the poem as a whole, it doesn't seem tricky, at least on the surface. It's clear there's depth there, but I'm not sure I think it's worth the trouble to go deeper. Frost is more accessible without sacrificing complexity. That's more my style. The main story has a similar tone and outlook with Prufrock. Passive, unsatisfied people stuck in the tarpits of stifling middle class social expectations. I don't find that very attractive, but I recognize it's not supposed to be. Maybe I'll read some interpretations if I can find some that are worth it.

T Clark said he has nothing more to say to me, because I stated that things that are not material do exist, and not at all supernatural things. I said some things that exist without material body are nevertheless dependent on material things for their existence. T Clark replied he and I have nothing more to say to each other. — god must be atheist

I assume you are talking about our exchanges in the "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?" thread. You have misstated my positions and put words in my mouth. I went back and looked at all our mutual posts in the thread to make sure I didn't misremember. I'll let @180 Proof speak for himself.

That being said, have at it.

Let's look at "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". Austin's strategy is to ask about the use of the word "real" here, looking for an alternative phrasing that sets out what is being said - as explained previously. — Banno

The words "existence," "being," and "reality," are valuable to me. I don't want to get rid of them. There is a world I live in everyday. It exists. It is. It's real. There are other ways of looking at things and I even find some of them helpful and interesting. I think I've shown that with my interest in the Tao Te Ching. But when you get to the bottom, when it's lunchtime, there is a world. I don't see that Lao Tzu would have any problem with that.

Have you changed your thinking in any way about 'real' as a result of this thread? — Tom Storm

What a good question. No fair. I don't think it so much changed my thinking as made it clearer what I actually think. It tested my ideas by making me use them in different contexts. I started out with a fairly limited claim - that what we mean by "real" and "reality" only has meaning in relation to everyday human experience. I think that's a metaphysical position, so I wasn't looking to see if it was right, but if it is useful. I gained confidence that it is.

That's how I use a lot of the discussions I start. It's like putting a canoe I just made in the water to see if it leaks. No, I don't make canoes. But I do make metaphors.

the best philosophers make up new words for perfectly good reasons. — Joshs

Maybe.... Making up new words is certainly needed for technical and scientific writing, but some people seem to think that making up a new word means they've had a new thought.

That's what my point was, which is why I was pointing out what the actual definition of reality is. — Hallucinogen

Definitions of words are established by humans based on a consensus of usage. There are good and bad definitions, but no true or false ones. Yours is a bad definition if for the only reason that no one else will know what you're talking about.

Nuff said.

I have no arguments against that. I am just saying I am not happy with that arrangement, and I created a neologism to circumvent this use of the same word for both. — god must be atheist

Making up new words when there are already perfectly good ones is one of the reasons people don't take philosophy seriously.

Sorry, while this pursuit is noble, I found them really hard to read is all. The Ukrainian war being so... now. And USians cheering on the whole affair like it's a football match... it's just hard for me to comment on stuff like that. (there's a reason I avoid the Ukraine thread) — Moliere

Yes, I feel the same thing. I keep thinking something really bad is going to happen that will affect the whole world.

Evility is a noun. Evil is an adjective. Evil is used as a noun because the English language lacks a noun form of evil. Hence the neologism evility. — god must be atheist

"Evil" is both a noun and an adjective and works very well as either.

"By definition" refers to what something is, not what people conventionally think it is. E.g. Someone can say "true is by definition the opposite of false" but people merely disagreeing doesn't mean that this definition is not the case. — Hallucinogen

You can say any word means anything you want, that don't make it so.

I think in absentia of the principle Nickolasgaspar and I put forward, people don't have a coherent idea of reality. An "independent" existence of the surrounding medium isn't defensible, and what we imagine must ultimately depend on that medium just as the objects we identify as taking on an actuality do. — Hallucinogen

You wrote "Reality is by definition the containing medium of anything you're able to interact with." I wanted to point out that is not the case. As I noted, I think your way of seeing reality is a useful one.

I've been thinking about this poem in the context of some previous posts about translation with @Dawnstorm. I think this one is a good example. The translator made some decisions that seem odd to me. My French is not good, but the translation of the first verse seems very different from my understanding. The English version seems to have a lot more going on than the French. I checked on Google translate. I think I like the English version better, but they seem really different. Obviously the translator brings much more understanding and nuance to the translation than Google and I do.

Moving "La rose dit à la tombe :"/"The Rose said to the Grave" to the end of the stanza in the English version also seems odd. It changes the tone and flow of the poem in a way I don't really like.

All in all, I think I like the English version better. Part of that is that I like the way English sounds better than I do French. I like harder, squared off edges better than the rounding over.

This all just reinforces my impression that translations are really distinct things compared to the original poem. Almost something completely new.

evility — god must be atheist

How is "evility" different than "evil?"