On Reality

One asks:  What is reality?

I say:  Reality, never being clearly defined, can be many things.  The skeptic believes it is a personal space where there may or may not be genuine things; the non-skeptic believes it is the meeting place of genuine things.  Yet even if there are things in the meeting place that are not genuine, this does not mean that there are no genuine things in the meeting place.  Likewise, just because there are genuine things in the meeting place does not mean it is not a personal space.  Personal and shared, genuine and ingenuine - these things may share the same space and yet be no less real in and of themselves.

If the skeptic is correct, then reality is almost a pointless construct - we are unable to know if what we perceive is real, for it could all just be an illusion.  Therefore, we should always be skeptical toward what we take to be knowledge; toward what we take to be reality.

If the non-skeptic is correct, then although we may perceive illusions, these illusions are merely mis-perceptions of the genuine things in the meeting place.  All that we perceive is genuinely so, even if we do not perceive correctly.  Therefore, there is a reality and we must be careful to discern it.

One asks:  Who is right, the skeptic or the non-skeptic?

I say:  Both have good views and, if they genuinely hold their views, there is no reason to say that one is "right" and the other is "wrong".  The true skeptic has good reason to be wary of what may or may not be reality.  The true non-skeptic is well-grounded in claiming that there is a reality that we share.

Both of these views have problems, though, because neither can prove that the other is wrong.  The skeptic cannot lay claim to knowledge, and therefore cannot weaponize it against the non-skeptic.  Likewise, the non-skeptic cannot challenge the skeptic without delving into the realm of skepticism to raise doubts.  It would be like trying to create land from air or air from land - the necessary resources and abilities are deficient in both.

One asks:  If neither the skeptic nor the non-skeptic can triumph, then is it so that we are lost?

I say:  This need not be so.  There are some who sit on the sidelines and wait for the eternal stalemate to end, and there are even some who join the battle themselves, hurrying only to wait.  By and large, however, many are able to go on about their lives without worrying over the matter of reality; their concern only flares when the topic is forced upon them.

One asks:  How can this be done?

I say:  There is no single way to alleviate the anxiety over reality, but many ways to match the many people.  There are, however, some ways that work better than others.  You have asked, so I will tell you my way.

It is my way to take reality as the sum of my perceptions and relations, both external and internal, and hold them as genuinely so.  What do I mean by this?  What I mean is that one's reality is what one makes it out to be.  If one genuinely perceives a dragonfly, but I do not, then is that dragonfly any less a part of that person's reality?  Certainly not!  The dragonfly has been perceived, and is therefore part of the person's reality.  This is not skepticism, for knowledge can be claimed; this is not non-skepticism, for there is a personal space in the meeting place.

One asks:  If there is a personal space within the meeting place, then how can there be genuine things?

I say:  What makes a thing genuine?  Is it because it exists for everyone?  This cannot be right, because there are some things that exist only for a single person or limited numbers of people.  Is anger not genuine?  Is fear not genuine?  Is joy not genuine?  Is love not genuine?  Certainly, we want to say that all of these things are genuine, yet they are not shared objectively and universally.  Therefore, it is possible to have personal things be genuinely so within the meeting place.  Furthermore, it is possible to share these personal things and make them shared things in the meeting place.  Of course, when one does so they are not totally shared, for others cannot have the exact same thing as what one has in one's personal space.  What others receive, at best, is something that is "close enough" that the connection can be made.  Still, these are cases of things that are genuinely so from a personal space being brought to the meeting place.  Likewise, one can take share things from the meeting place into the personal space.  There is no conflict here.

One asks:  If things are neither purely personal or purely shared, then how can any knowledge ever be genuinely and completely shared?

I say:  Knowledge cannot be completely shared, as knowledge is a thing shared from the personal space.  It can, however, be genuinely shared and take as a "close enough" thing.  This is because one cannot be another, and another cannot be one's self.  This is simply the logic of things, but it is also my logic of things.  Therefore I may be wrong, but I accept this as true if for no other purpose than to make sense of the world.  Is this not sufficient to comprehend reality?