I think that this statement can be solved but I have not met anyone at all who agrees with me. The philosophical statement in question is ‘Nothing unreal exists’…Can we discuss this please, I have pages and pages of notes and very close to the answer but also very close to brain bursting point.
Parse the sentance: The active bit here is “unreal.” If it is defines as “that which is not real,” then “unreal exists” is a contradiction, therefore adding “nothing” to the contradictory phrase yields a statement equivalent to "the non-existant dosen’t exist.
A linguistic trap, not philosophical.
Or not. Take your pick. Either youwant to make sense or you don’t.
Thanks for the answer…Not really that helpful actually…The crux of my problem is based upon the observation that “if the very fact that we have recognised an object and described it as unreal, this means that it has some existence for us, even if it is completely intangible”…completely intangible is the biggy here. I am basing my hypothesis on the fact that the way “Nothing unreal exists” is interpreted is seemingly independent of our perception of reality….our ontology. Is reality independent of the perceiver? Or is reality determined by the perceiver? ha ha… I intend to link this with the term reality. Reality is different for each person and almost all through Objectivist literature the word reality should be replaced by the word existence so that is probably where my introduction will focus…… I maintain that reality is that which exists and the two words can be used interchangeably. The fact that one’s perception can be flawed means that if what you perceive does not exist, then it is not real, but in such a case, surely it is not reality that is flawed, it is your consciousness that is flawed. Oh I think I need to go now and down a very large drink of something particularly alcoholic. Thanks again…
You know, I think this should be in GD. Furthermore I think that we discussed a similar position some months before in a thread where someone asked about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. (S)he asked whether something (factually) not existing could still be said to (conceptually) exist. It seems to me that you have a similar ambivalence in the way you use ‘real’ and ‘unreal’.
I remember that thread; IIRC, it was merely an exercise in defining the term ‘exists’ in a way that didn’t make a lot of sense.
Ah, yes. The wit and wisdom of Star Trek IV. (Remember, it’s the message that’s important, not the messenger carrying it.)
It’s not quite a tautological statement, but it comes very close. Its purpose is to make clear the relationship between reality and existence.
Unreal:
Not real or substantial; illusory.
Slang. So remarkable as to elicit disbelief; fantastic.
Surreal.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)
Real:
Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.
Genuine and authentic; not artificial or spurious: real mink; real humility.
Being no less than what is stated; worthy of the name: a real friend.
Free of pretense, falsehood, or affectation: tourists hoping for a real experience on the guided tour.
Not to be taken lightly; serious: in real trouble.
Philosophy. Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language.
Relating to, being, or having value reckoned by actual purchasing power: real income; real growth.
Physics. Of, relating to, or being an image formed by light rays that converge in space.
Mathematics. Of, relating to, or being a real number.
Law. Of or relating to stationary or fixed property, such as buildings or land.
(Ibid.)
The majority of these senses refer to existence as a necessary property of being real, although genuineness is also a definition; imaginary, untrue, or nonexistent things are unreal.
Therefore an unreal thing could exist, being a fake or counterfeit. However a thing which has no existence by definition does not exist (although if a thing you described as “not real”, e.g. flying saucers, subsequently came to be found, you might then be required to describe it as “real”).
“Real” is a word with too many meanings for the OP to be answered without narrowing down the question. The fact that “unreal” is rarely used to mean “not real” also makes it hard to pin down its exact meaning in the OP’s context: most commonly when someone says “unreal”, it is as an exclamation, meaning something which is surprising or unexpected but definitely existing.
Yup. An excersize in linguistics, nothing else.
If you WANT to believe in the unreal, go ahead. But arguing about its existance is futile without evidence, and with evidence it isn’t unreal anymore.
After a point it just comes down to faith. Either you believe (because it suits you) or you don’t (because it dosen’t) in some things and not in others.
Suit yourself.
There’s a difference between something existing and the notion of something existing.
You can have the idea of invisible pink unicorns, but that doesn’t make them exist. The idea exists, not the object. I say there’s a difference.
This is, indeed, the crux of your problem, that is, defining your terms. You cannot describe an “object” as unreal and intangible, because “object” presupposes its reality and tangibility. But something like a god or a pixie would be considered a conceptual construct, not an object.
Of course, there are also things which exist (e.g. states of mind, emotions), which are not objects, and only indirectly tangible.