The Definition of Reality

         There is nothing harder than trying to pin down a personal definition. Unlike things that can be easily found in a dictionary, or something that is neatly typed out in the back of a textbook; the meaning of an abstract concept to a single person is something unique and absurdly confusing. Unless said individual is simply repeating a memorized definition, their honest understanding of something like identity or reality is confused at best.

         If you were to ask someone what they defined as reality, chances are they would say something along the lines of “reality is the version of time and space which I am accustomed to.” They say this, of course, because the widespread understanding of reality is a personal conception of events in an individual's life; it is nothing but a definition of individualized vision. However, reality must be understood as a broader concept to be of any significance. It is useless to concern ourselves with the personal vision of each individual because this concept does not connect properly to the encompassing term “reality”, or the general essence of its time-spatial identity.

         For this term to be of significance, it must affect more than a single person. Saying that the reality Joe experiences contains factors a, b, and c; but then going on to say that this particular reality is specific only to Joe destroys the significance of any conclusions found within. How can the factors of Joe's private world affect any other person? They cannot. So then, how can something which affects only one person be defined as an understanding of time and space? It cannot. Factors a, b, and c only refer to the time and space occupied by Joe and perceived by Joe; therefore these factors do not affect time and space as a whole, only as a discrete package.

         From these conclusions, the issue that arises when one attempts to define reality is quite obvious. That is, we are individuals. Each of us has a “personal reality”, or perhaps a better term is perception which affects any definition we attempt. Think of it this way: we are all scientists who wish to make accurate observations of a sample, but we are forced to wear distorted goggles that change the colour and shape of everything we see. Any observations we make, regardless of their accuracy, are tainted by the goggles' distorting property and are thus worthless. If the sample is reality and the goggles are perception, it then becomes the fault of perception that reality is impossible to define.

         It would be relatively easy to conclude our analysis here, with an anti-definition if you will; however, that would leave the concept unresolved. Another question rears its head when we say that reality is indescribable: if it is impossible to truly understand and interact with, how can it be a fundamental component of life? Reality is definitely a concept that exists on the same level as things like infinity and nothing: which are binary, yes-no concepts, things we learn at a young age so that we may build on them with more complex ideas. But for these things to be the foundation of other concepts, they must be definite ideas which brood no uncertainty or confusion, otherwise our more complex concepts would be incorrect.

         Perhaps a more simplistic way to look at the subject is to consider the process of learning. Let us begin by describing the mentality of a child prior to an delicate education, a theoretical child who has only ever been exposed to basic social interactions, so that we may limit the manipulation of his thoughts. In theory, this child would have an understanding of concepts such as  yes, no, something, nothing, time, space, and life: these are fundamental ideas, after all, and so we expect everyone to understand them. Ironically enough, these concepts which we consider so basic are the very ones we as adults spend years trying to define. How many philosophers and scientists have tried to pin down what time is exactly? How many religions spend giant chunks of their scripture struggling to rationalize life and death? These “basic” ideas are the meat of our existential confusion. And yet, returning to the theoretical child, it can still be said he understands these things.

         The possibility of this situation seems doubtful when viewed from a lofty, analytical position; but realistically, it is very true. As children, we all know the difference between something and nothing; if a situation is provided for us involving the two as options, we have no issue deliberating between them. Therefore, it is not our understanding of these concepts which prevents their definition, it is our ability to objectify and thus to communicate them which does.

         To explain briefly, it is commonly understood that humans need tangible evidence and recognizable imagery to understand an idea. When understanding the concept of a tree, it is necessary to have a visual reference or a sensational memory to base the thought on. To understand a subatomic particle, the idea must be blown up to the point that a comparable visual reference or sensational memory is possible. This same method is present in the use of metaphor, of diagrams, of lectures, and even of notes. All of these things are rational, down-to-earth, corporal  ways of personifying thought;  which is the only way humans understand anything. So then, taking this idea, the reason humans cannot define reality is because it cannot be reduced to a visualization.

         However, I reiterate that the child from the previous scenario can understand the same concept that we have no way of defining. How can this be possible? The answer lies in the connotation of “define.”

         Understanding and defining are not the same thing. There is a general misconception that the two are rather synonymous, but that is simply incorrect. To understand something, it not necessary to have a solid visualization of it as a subject, nor it is necessary to know its origins or details. Practices such as these are reserved for “defining” because they deal with “definite” concepts; things with rational heft. Understanding refers to a more obscure mental process. You may know what a concept is, in the sense that you can relate the concept to its various outcomes and connections, but the actual subject may completely allude you. For example, if “time” is mentioned in a conversation, you automatically understand how time affects you, how it affects the situation, and how it relates to the conversation; but at the same time, you cannot say what time is exactly. This phenomenon is a result of only understanding a concept on a primal, subconscious level; or as a thing which can be identified only when it interacts with more recognizable subjects. It is this particular mental process which is “understanding”; that is, when an idea is transferred into the subconscious as an impalpable identification which supersedes conscious recognition.

         Taking this view of understanding in stride,  it is a little easier to see how the child can understand something like reality without defining it. However, the moment that this is said, another issue arises: we generally learn the definition of a subject before it is transferred into understanding. Yet, by saying the child understands reality but cannot define it, it is implied that the step of definition was skipped. How then did the child come to understand reality?

         Children understand fundamental concepts before they are defined because the understanding is in their subconscious at birth. Like other fundamental instincts, such as our primal fear of falling despite our ignorance of it, children understand concepts like reality before they can so much as say the word.  This idea is similar to Plato's subject of innate knowledge in Meno. In this Socratic dialogue, Plato explores the concept of each person having been born with all knowledge, and that learning is in fact just the process of remembering it.

         To give this idea scientific reasoning, it could be said that humans are born with the understanding of fundamental concepts, such as reality and time, so that we can use our large brains to understand more practical things more quickly. If we were stuck struggling with concepts such as these for our whole lives, our brains would go to waste. The most basic ideas are impossible to define, and are therefore impossible to learn in conventional sense; instead, we “remember” these things right away, which is what makes their existence in our minds seem so surreal.

         To pull all of these things together, let us return to the theoretical child. Here is a human who has very little experience, very little teaching, nothing but his raw mind to understand the world with. What does he know? He knows things that were explained to him, such as the name and form of a firetruck, but he also understands the concept of “reality.” This concept was never taught to him in the conventional way, no one ever repeated the word over and over while pointing at a diagram; he simply came to know it. Now this is not to say that he could tell you what reality is, assuming he can even form a sentence yet, he only understands it in the sense that he can see how reality affects him individually. To him, reality is nothing but a vague idea that time and space exist in a way and will continue in this way because of said incorporeal force. This concept was in his mind long before the word, and was buried so deeply that its definition never had a chance to surface.

         This theoretical scenario is the closest we can come to defining reality: a concept which is embedded within our subconscious as an understanding of how a surreal force affects our personal version of time and space. It is a vague, messy, useless jumble of words. But how could be any different? Trying to define a subconscious understanding is like trying to reconstruct the ashes of a log: impossible.