Thomyum2 wrote: ↑June 15th, 2019, 2:47 pm As I understand the term, what is 'real' is that which exists and endures independent of my/our own perception of it, independent of my/our will or choice that it exist, that which is not simply imagined. In regard to materialism, it is the belief that matter, and all the concepts that accompany it, i.e. time, space, energy, etc., constitute that reality. Those things exist before us and will continue to exist after us.
That's current standard academic curricular usage of reality/existence. So, I can have no quarrel with it. That is until I go past that definition and ask some searching questions which might get me thrown out of intro classes. But the curriculum is not wrong, and neither are my questions. Asking such questions looks past learning the curriculum.
Notice that your definition presumes that reality and existence are interchangeable, so are other similar terms, for example, is. This is because if there is an eternal, unchanging underlying substance, whether that be material or otherwise, there is nothing else worth talking about. Reality universally exists and that's that.
There, 'existence' is a unary term, something either is, exists, has being or it does not.
However, 'reality' to Plato and others has degrees, which leads to a logical conundrum. Something can be more or less real. Theoretically, Plato pushed for higher reality as a measure of degree of permanence, with Forms being the highest.
But Plato also skirted and opposed the Protagorean view that only my present experience is really real with past and future fading in both directions.
Then there is 'being'. To Plato, being could mean having non-material essence, or it could imply dynamic participation in forms, or a web of relations or dynamic interaction between forms.
This should be enough to leave us confused.
Science can successfully, to a varying degree, explain and predict the behavior of these, but does science therefore actually show us that they are 'real' in this sense of the word?
Science categorizes the appearance and behavior of a
changing world. That is a major difference.
Philosophy is prior to science in a metaphysical sense. By that, I don't mean to imply that there is philosophy to meet that metaphysical necessity.
Also, science and scientific facts evolve or just suddenly change as times change, or as various technologies become available. Philosophy only expands, often recycling old ideas.