What is reality? / Nothingness

[undeadjellybean]

Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist."[1] What is existance? –verb (used without object) 1. to have actual being; be Does that mean that Reality is "the state of things as they actually ARE?" If I am, I exist. If I exist, I am real. If I don't wish my dreams to be, but rather, let them be, if my dreams ARE, they exist. & if they exist they are real. So I don't wish something to be, I rather let it be. Unrreal, not real, not existing, not being, just not. But it's not nothingness. Literally, the term denotes what is real; in its widest sense, this includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, as well If nothingness exists... then what is that that does not exist?

[nerve]

I think everything and nothing are the same thing. everything you see around you, everything you know...you're essentially walking around in absolute nothingness. but my beliefs are a little odd. metaphysical nihilist maybe? I don't know.

[undeadjellybean]

I think everything and nothing are the same thing. everything you see around you, everything you know...you're essentially walking around in absolute nothingness. but my beliefs are a little odd. metaphysical nihilist maybe? I don't know. your beliefs are a little odd & a little alike to mine

[nina]

Moved to Philosophy.

[FifthElement]

for Me: I am but a tiny residue of awareness ever expanding through the illusion of time.

[Oneironaut Zero]

I think words like "Real" and "Are" aren't very useful, in this context. What is "real?" If someone says their dreams are "real", are they trying to imply that their dreams are substantially/physically "real?" Someone can say that "nothingness exists", but it's a play on words to try to associate that nothingness as being somehow tangible (as opposed to nothingness "not existing"). That which doesn't exist is still "nothingness", but people kind of confuse themselves by making these associations between the words, themselves, as if they are literal definitions of that thing's existence. For instance: are dreams "real?" Yes. Do they exist? "Yes." Is the dream content "real?" It depends. Does that "real" mean physically, or conceptually?" Yes, nothingness "exists", but is it a physical, tangible thing? No. It is the absence of all physical, tangible things. Trying to define it in terms of "real/unreal", though, can be a little misleading, and depends entirely upon the person's interpretation of those words, at that given time.

[opaque lens]

What it is not, one can definitely say. What precisely it is, one cannot adequately express in conventional terms as it is unique. It is for self-realization.

[undeadjellybean]

What it is not, one can definitely say. What precisely it is, one cannot adequately express in conventional terms as it is unique. It is for self-realization. This is beautiful!

[Dannon Oneironaut]

Philosophers always confuse themselves and get lost in conceptual word games. Philosophers know nothing of reality. A Philosopher will ask: "What do you mean by reality? Do you mean the material Universe? Do you mean a transcendental state? Do you mean an absolute spiritual nothingness? Do you mean the physical world of Nature?" But these are all philosophical concepts..... But... Reality is not a concept. Reality is: ..... And we won't give it a name.

[undeadjellybean]

And who knows a thing about reality?