“Being real. If you can define what that means, then you know more than Aristotle and Plato combined”
-Faith T. Davies
As perspectives go I find mine to be wholly lacking in regards to creating definitions. What else can my perspective do besides define what is perceived, and currently I am not able to create such definitions. Well, one definition to be precise, and with such I find it wholly undefinable.
Maybe I just want to avoid the question. I find trying to define something that is used as noun, verb, and adjective to be a royal pain in the ass.
But it was asked of me, and like many other hopeless causes in life, I find myself taking upon the task.
Well, taking the task on now that I have gotten the pompous wind-bag that is my english degree out of my system.
What is real? I don’t know. It isn’t the first time the question has been asked of me, and I couldn’t fully answer it then, let alone after 6 years of fruitless research and nowhere arguments. Maybe that is the point, or maybe it’s an ideology that no one could ever truly grasp. I have found dictionary definitions to be fully lacking in allowing a true comprehension of the word.
But if I must give my two cents…
I think, in the truest sense of what could be considered real, would rely heavily upon the ability of perception. It would depend upon one’s willingness to accept the fact that their own perception is flawed, thus making what they perceive to be different than the actual object or experience they have observed. It’s an oxymoron in layman’s terms, nothing can be real because it needs to be irrefutable, and everything is refutable at its basest level.
In the end, it doesn’t matter what is “real;” what matters is whether or not we are willing to give up control and accept that what is considered real, isn’t real. Until then, nothing is real, and everything is real.