What do you think is the consensus, if there is one, re: what these words signify, and how they are to be distinguished?
Do they mean pretty much the same thing, or ought one recognize certain distinctions?
My opinion at present is that “real” and “existent” co-refer and have no distinction worth bothering with, but that both are to be distinguished from “actual.”
I observe that persons are much more inclined to say things like “it’s real, in a sense” or “well, it exists in a way, I guess,” than to use similar formulations re: “actual.”
It SEEMS that if there is anything such that it has a genuine description (that is, its “true description”), and thus is such that statements about it may be legitimately regarded as either true or false (and not meaningless)–then it is real/existent (“in a way, in a sense,” etc.) Fictitious entities–Sherlock Holmes comes to mind–are like that. “Where did he really live–221B or 221C?” does evoke a meaningful answer. “Where does [series of incoherent noises] live?” does not.
But “actual” strikes me as an attempt to say that some something is not only a real-existent, but is instantiated “in a manner that has some direct causal import within the compass of lawful nature” (you think of something better).
Actual could be opposed to “potential”, “theoretical” and other limiting qualifiers. I can say a motor has an actual output of 150 HP in spite of being rated at 160.
I’m afraid I would lean toward dictionary distinctions, once the debate began tuning in to the distinctions between/among them.
In casual (non-philosophical) conversation or writing, I’d tend to treat them all as mostly synonymous. If the issue or subject became more dependent on precision of terminology, I’d go to the dictionary. If that failed to satisfy both camps in an argumant/debate, I’d hope some other impartial source could at least establish for the parties involved some consensus of which term(s) are to represent which senses.
If this sounds evasive of your main question, then I guess I would have to ask, “What’s the context?”
Like the OP, I think the big distinction is between “actual” and the other two (which I find to be synonymous).
Actual: phenomenal existent. Real/Exists: able to be meaningfully discussed.
In the assumed context (that is, “the real world”), the two should be interchangeable.
So for example, we can say unicorns exist (we can, after all discuss them, ‘unicorn’ serves a purpose) but they aren’t actual (they don’t actually exist) because the thing the word indicates, a horse with one horn etc, has no phenomenal content (it cannot be experienced).
Of course, this is coming from the man who says electrons aren’t actual, either.
I think that ‘exists’ is the broadest of the three terms.
Exist refers to how we associate or observe something internally.
When ‘real’ is used, it’s used in the context of other people who also observe things that exist.
That puddle exists, but is it a real puddle or a mirage?"
Real is used in the sense that we understand such devices as deception and illusion exist, and that there are meaningless ways to observe phenomenon, that our senses do in fact observe.
Real is used to sort out meaningless internal perceptions, and find unified perceptions that translate between all individuals of perspective and experience.
Actual refers to the perception that a single individual or group hold about a given ideal. Like ‘real’, it (actually) also accesses other people in order to disinguish itself. A positive affirmation of actual, is a positive affirmation of a given ideal embedded into that individual… it generally refers to their memory.
That’s how I’d discern them, though iIdo believe that they are used sysnonmously quite a bit.
I meant to add that ‘actual’ strikes me as referring to ones memory of placement. In a game of monty, there is not doubt that all of the cards are real. But there is an actual one, that compells the game, and this actual one is reserved in someones memory. Unless someone changes the cards around while the prior observer was there, the actual card in reference will be selected correctly by them. Actual, generally assumes that what was remembered before is not subject to change given the circumstances. To suggest that the actual HP of a car is ‘x’, is to assume that your memory of it’s actual HP and your memory of how HP rises and lowers, have calculated that the HP is going to represent your description of it.
They’re scattered comments, mostly dealing with [what I consider to be] the fact that an “electron” is an explanatory device used to deconstruct larger phenomena that we do sense, like electricity or light, into smaller units, a task which I think most realists hope will bottom out (or has with the quark). I don’t find myself sensing electrons, but these “electrons” are given to be the underlying cause of things that I do experience.
The more I think about this, the more that I conclude that ‘exists’ is the broadest and the term that cannot meaningfully exchange as synonyms with ‘real’ or ‘actual’. I suppose I take issue with the OP and others on this stance.
Exists refers to the negation or phenomenalization of an event.
To contrast it, ‘real’ refers to multiple interpretations of that which exists.
‘Actual’ seems to refer to the operative interpretations, given those sets of ‘real’ interpretations.
I see an order here that is linear.
In order for something to be actual it must be real. Something can be real, without being actual.
In order for something to be real, it must exist. Something can exist and not be real.
In order for something to exist, it must be precievable. Something cannot exist if it is not percievable.
True, deriving meaning from word usage may not always give interesting results. Still at the very least it is a nice exercise.
I’m mostly with t-leave, but for the heck of it would like to point out some complications.
“they’re real - and they’re spectacular”. Real as meaning genuine. (also: The real McCoy).
“Santa Claus doesn’t exist”. (no, I have no cite. It’s just a hypothetical example ). ‘Exist’ used in the sense of ‘real’.
I had some more, but forgot them.
BTW I’m used to think of actual as the polar opposite of potential. Historically these words derive from Aristotle’s metaphysics, which were translated into Latin, then built on by Aquinas. The latin words are, I believe, actualitas and potentia.
What I was thinking about is that quite often people say that word X must mean something, unaware that they are not refering to clear intrinsic properties of the world. In fact meaning is a rather intricate relationship between the way we use words to denote things and the way we think things are in the world, which is partly based on experience, human purposes, and preconceptions. It is entirely possible to say that a specific usage of a word, though common, is not really valid, and thereby possibly changing the way the word is used.
Thus we can work with a notion of real meaning, contrasting with existing and actual usage. We might, Platonically speaking, put reality on a higher plane than mere existence. Come to think of it, this is exactly what Hegel does.* So there is another set of meanings available.
See his Encyclopaedia, par. 123 versus par 142.
Notice and admire the suave manner in which the hijack is led back to the original topic.
In Hegelian parlance, reality is the actualization of the potentional lying dormant within naked, raw existence. Hence reality is higher than existence. A rough example would be the potential of a democratic rule-of-law form of government that was a mere potentiality in Western states in the 1800’s, but was actualized in the following centuries. The reality of the state, would Hegel say, lies in it being a proper democratic rule-of-law. The existing states in his time hadn’t realized that yet. So here reality=actuality.
“Something can exist and not be real” It’s right there in the linear list I made at the end of the last post. It addresses your McCoy usage.
With regards to Santa Claus…
I need to think on it longer. I addressed some of this recently when commenting in the “absence of belief is a belief” thread. You may be able to track with where I’ll be coming from when addrsssing the concept in this thread.
**Distinguish “real” vs. “existent” vs. “actual.” **
Wonderful! What a lead-in to discuss semantics.
Remember the famous** Milum’s Maxim** boys and girls…
** Words have no absolute meaning. Words only have function.**
Now for all of you who have forgotten, this means that in this deterministic universe all descriptions of that which is, have meaning only in terms of an evolutionary aspect of species continuance, nothing more, nothing less.
It is hoped that within this framework, an objective reality and our functional reality will coalesce and we will then know the truth, and the truth will be good and worth knowing.
**Distinguish “real” vs. “existent” vs. “actual.” **
Wonderful! What a lead-in to discuss semantics.
Remember the famous** Milum’s Maxim** boys and girls…
** Words have no absolute meaning. Words only have function.**
Now for all of you who have forgotten, this means that in this deterministic universe all descriptions of that which is, have meaning only in terms of an evolutionary aspect of species continuance, nothing more, nothing less.
It is hoped that within this framework, an objective reality and our functional reality will coalesce and we will then know the truth, and the truth will be good and worth knowing.
). ‘Exist’ used in the sense of ‘real’.