Yahoo Answers is shutting down on 4 May 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Assuming the philosophical theory of perceived reality is true it still leaves a question unanswered which is "so what"?
A while ago some of my family members were going through a phase of talking about some stupid theory of perceived reality and how nothing is really real. I always hated it when they talked about for one I personally think it's wrong and I also think it's dangerous and encourages a nihilistic world view. Even if it is true it's still dangerous I mean if true things can't be dangerous we wouldn't be shutting down certain political views now would we? Outside of it being dangerous I think the theory is also a negative claim fallacy. There's also the question that if this world is completely perceived and not real then why do are actions have actual consequences unlike a dream world which is actually not real? And why is it that multiple people can perceive the same thing like why is it that everyone who passes by a building can see that building if it's not real? Then here's the biggest question. So what? Even if this world isn't real if you are in jail it doesn't change the fact your in jail if you're poor it doesn't change the fact that you're poor even if this world isn't real and purely perceived that "fact" is useless and doesn't change anything.
1 Answer
- 2 months ago
I don't know what you think you're referring to, but there is no formal philosophical theory in Western Philosophy called "the theory of perceived reality", so the theory can be neither true nor false if it doesn't exist. However, there are definitions for the phrase "perceived reality" in both philosophy and psychology. Another term for it is Subjective Reality.
Plato described his own version of it in his Allegory of the Cave, which concluded that we cannot perceive the world of "perfect forms", only the shadows of those forms. This is similar to the Hindu philosophy of "Advaita Vedanta" that basically says we are ignorant of our real selves, therefore everything is an illusion [called "|maya"] to one degree or another.
What you are referring to also sounds a lot like Solipcism, which is an epistemological argument claiming that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure and that the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind.
This leads us to a branch of nihlism called Ontological Nihilism which maintains that nothing actually exists at all. The difference between this and solipcism is that the ontological nihilist denies that the self exists, where a solopsist claims that the self is the only thing we know that exists.
One of the problems I have with either of those positions is that, as you say, they seem to be negative claim fallacies, and just like atheism and other adamant beliefs about the true nature of things, they are nothing greater than opinions that cannot be proved.
Ultimately, on your own personal level, how you perceive things around you, no matter how they actually are, is what is real to YOU. That's the perceived or subjective reality mentioned at the beginning of my answer. Some of your perceptions are probably close to reality, some probably aren't, and yet others may be pure fantasy. And, of course, they may conflict with the perceptions of others.
By stating "so what?" along with your reasons, this is exactly the same sentiment that applies to the idea that we could be living inside a gigantic simulation. So what if we are? We still have to live out our lives and experience our version of reality, whether or not it is "really real".
