Talk:Reality

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Reality article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 180 days

Template:Vital article

Philosophy: Metaphysics / Ethics C‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics
	Ethics

Template:WP1.0

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the 'imaginary' hyperlink to the Wikipedia page for imagination rather than the Wiktionary article for imaginary 160.91.143.204 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Linked to the page Object of the mind. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deactivate template since @DRAGON BOOSTER: actioned the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is the justification for the ontological status of this page?

Why does this page exist? Shouldn't it just redirect to ontology? I mean "Reality is the topic studied by ontology." or "See: Ontology?" To have two pages which cover the philosophical study of reality, which this page also does, is dumb. Also the first-link tree of this is a cycle meaning that it is a stranded definition based on circular topics. I think this is sophomoric philosophical speculation, the opening paragraph has a materialist bent which is mentioned in another comment and recommend this page be a redirection or deleted.

Ontology studies being more than reality, the Ontology page deals almost exclusively with being, I found this page far more relevant to what I was searching for. - 37.164.233.197 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting observation

Because of an edit on this page in mid-September, about 90% of all pages have been cut off from Philosophy. Now, people are stuck between Reality and Existence. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reality is a comodity?

who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.193.72 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

referenced Phenomenological reality

Added PhilPapers reference, "Present-time", to lead sentence...please check it out.Arnlodg (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religious bias in the article

Almost all of the religions in the world consist of their own metaphysical theories, but the article only includes a section on only Jainism, without any apparent reason for leaving out the theories of other religions. Besides that, Jain tattva (aspects of reality in Jainism) is a metaphysical theory, and its relation to "reality" is signified well enough by referencing metaphysics in the article. Should that section be removed? Ambuj Shukla (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More reification content is needed