Essay: Reality is not an illusion

[IDC]

How to convince yourself reality is not an illusion: A step by step guide

Standard Objectivist Disclaimer: As many Objectivists know, one can not prove that reality is what it appears. However one can point an individual in the right direction such that their own observations, not the words on this page, form a validation.

Step 1: A strictly limited concept of Existence

First we must form a very strict, limited concept of existence, the utility of which will become evident later on. The main thing that stops people from grasping what reality is, is having a concept of existence that is not pure, that is polluted with other ideas such as "physical reality." Our concept of existence is a highly minimalist version of the idea of existing and means only that a thing is not pure nothingness. i.e. not pure blackness, pure silence, a void. It says absolutely nothing more than that.

To emphasize the point, to apply this new concept to the sight of a table would not mean any of the following:

- It would not mean there is a second table behind the image

- It would not mean there is a physical world

- It would not mean the table image exists independently of our brain

All it would mean, is that the image itself is not total blackness, a void, a nothingness.

Step 2: Existence exists

Now, armed with this new concept, we can continue. The first thing to note is that since it is so minimalist - it only means not being nothing - that it applies to more than just physical existents such as tables.

For example, take a feeling of hunger. Most people would agree it is not the same in kind as a table. But when you feel it, is it nothing - is it a total void? If not, then it belongs in this concept. To take an even more extreme example: when you imagine a dancing pink elephant, is that total blackness, total silence - more than that - is it absolute void? No. Given our new concept, it too exists.

Try doing a few more examples: memories, dreams, other types of feelings - anything you want. Even if you try to imagine total silence and blackness you should realize that you are imagining blackness, not nothingness. When you have done enough examples to grasp that everything no matter what will fit under our new concept you are ready to move on.

This realization is refered to as "Existence Exists."

Step 3: A is A

This is where we get the payoff for forming the concept. You see, most people who want to know what reality is, start with the question "What is reality?" Logical enough, but also fatally flawed. It is flawed because the answer to what existence is turns out to be a corollary of the earlier grasp that existence exists, and by skipping this earlier step they can not then grasp the corollary.

So, how does "existence exists" tell us what reality is? We observed that appearances(1) are not nothingness. But hang on, isn't that all one needs to qualify as part of existence (remember our pure concept)? Therefore appearances are part of existence too, first class citizens, not some illusion or layer on top. Not the whole thing, but not an illusion either, just another part.

But if our awarenesses are of the real existence, doesn't that answer the question of identity too, of what exists? Because the appearances are not nothing, they qualify as part of true existence, therefore what they actually are is what they appear to be (since to ask what they are, is to ask what exists, and the appearance exists).

To grasp this is to grasp that "A is A." (2)

Therefore, in summary, we can say that not only is reality not an illusion, it is the exact opposite of an illusion: it is something that is exactly what it appears.

(1) Note that in the face of this analysis, the whole concept of "appearances" loses any meaning, however I feel it is important to retain it in this essay as the purpose is help build a bridge for people coming from another mindset.

(2) Note that after some time, when all these steps merge in ones mind, one comes to realize that the fact that a thing is what it is, follows simply from the fact of it not being nothing. At that point one is ready to grasp that A is A is a universal law, and it does not merely apply to that which we observe.

[Hal]

This is very similar to the argument that Berkeley used when putting forwards the claim that the physical world doesnt exist...

The problem with giving such a fundamental status to what you call appearences or sensations, is that it seems to leave the physical world (by which I mean the things that cause appearances and sensations) with nothing to do, hence making it superflous. To take a concrete example - suppose I have a dream involving a unicorn, and then wake up and look at my cat. What is the metaphysical difference between these 2 appearences? From your post, there doesnt seem to be one.

Edited February 24, 2005 by Hal

[IDC]

This is very similar to the argument that Berkeley used when putting forwards the claim that the physical world doesnt exist...

The problem with giving such a fundamental status to what you call appearences or sensations, is that it seems to leave the physical world (by which I mean the things that cause appearances and sensations) with nothing to do, hence making it superflous. To take a concrete example - suppose I have a dream involving a unicorn, and then wake up and look at my cat. What is the metaphysical difference between these 2 appearences? From your post, there doesnt seem to be one.

In the post I'm not arguing that the appearances are primaries, just that they exist and are what they are. I fully accept that they may be effects of earlier causes.

I guess I'm just saying that that doesn't make them any less real.

The unicorn is a mental existent and the cat is a physical existent. In asking what the metaphysical difference is, I fear you may be interpreting my post as saying they are both ultimately the same stuff - existence - but it is not saying that. Existence is just an abstraction. Since the cat and unicorn both are what they are, the universe is the many and varied, and there is no one stuff.

That's not to say "existence" isn't a valid abstraction of course, since they are in fact both not nothing, but it is just an abstraction.