What is Real Since the beginning of higher thought there has always been an internal struggle within the very depths of man that wondered “What is Real”. For centuries all men have tried to define and analyze this for many different reasons, to predict the future, to know where we came from, to manipulate and control. After all the time that man has been on Earth many different ideas and theories have developed on this topic but this still has been one of the most universally debatable issues. Reality is dependent on each individuals own interpretation of what is real in terms of our sensory experience, personal perceptions, and own individualistic beliefs.
Edwin Abbott wrote a great analogy about our dimensional experience in Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Many subjects are approached in this book but the most interesting was the concept of dimensions. He starts off describing that we live and apply logic in dimensions; the first dimension consists of points that can produce a single line, the points live in the first dimension and therefore cannot grasp the perception of the next dimension. The second dimension consists of moving lines which turns into shapes along two axis’, this dimension can fully understand the first dimension but yet again the next dimension is inconceivable. In the third dimension the same idea is applied, the shapes formed along the second dimension are moved and twisted into, as we perceive it, three dimensional shapes that are multisided and multifaceted. The same rule applies where the third dimension can understand the first and second dimensions. In respect of the first three dimension does it not make sense that the next dimension, the fourth dimension, would also be squared making shapes along four plains? With human understanding being caught in the third dimension there is no definite way to prove what the fourth dimension holds. Abbott also states that “does it not of necessity follow that the more divine offspring of the divine Cube in the Land of Four Dimensions, must have eight bounding Cubes: and is not this also, as my Lord has taught me to believe, "strictly according to analogy"?” (Abbott 99) What Abbott is essentially saying is that according to the fact that we can quite easily understand the dimensions before ours and our own but not of dimensions after ours. His analogy leaves the deduction that there dimensions past ours but they cannot be defined. In order for something to be real it needs to be perceived and each and every intelligent being perceives it in their own way. Since we perceive everything real in the third dimension it is fundamentally described as reality but we have no knowledge or perception of any dimension that come therefore after.
What we perceive and our fundamental perspective is the definition of what our reality is described as. Lincoln Barnett stated in an article that he entitled “Einstein’s Relativity” that “every object is simply the sum of its qualities, and since qualities exist only in the mind, the whole objective universe of matter and energy, atoms and stars, does not exist except as a construction of the consciousness, an edifice of conventional symbols shaped by the senses of man.” (Barnett 372) This is very true especially in terms of how we our brought up in our society. We are taught at a very young age to break complicated objects into simpler and more definable concepts that we have already mastered. All of these definable concepts are only understood through our own deduction and mental faculties, with and without prior knowledge every object is only a sum of sensory aspects. These sensory aspects make all objects a construction of the consciousness and both collectively and individually we try to form our own reality and make logical sense of it. We try to learn what other men have found true but without experiencing it firsthand one cannot truly say they know it; no one on earth can say that evolution is a fact because not a single person has experienced it first hand, every theory we know of is all speculation.
Our perception on reality depends heavily on our position in time and space also. Einstein wrote about this heavily and in an article entitled “The Relativity of Simultaneity” he stated that “Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous… Every reference-body has its own particular time; unless are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event” (Einstein 26) Einstein is bring to light the idea that not only does our physical position in space greatly affects our perception of events, also does our position in time. Every imaginable application of physics affects our individual interpretation of what is real and what is not. Our position determines what our senses can interpret, we can judge basic geometric properties of an object just by viewing it for a second but from another angle it can appear as a completely different item and can stand alone. This also applies to all of the other senses such as touch, sound, taste, and smell; without knowing the complete composition of an object we cannot truly define it and even then each person will have its own unique interpretation of what is real. Time also plays a fundamental factor in what is real; within milliseconds of recognizing an object, time fundamentally changes the physical properties making it profoundly different. Everything in the world is decaying and is never the same from time to time; not to mention if the theory of atoms is applied, neutrons are constantly moving with great orbits added that much physical uncertainly to truly defining an object. Arthur Menton added much to the idea of what is real and what is illusion in his book Philosophy: Paradox and Discovery. In this book there is an excerpt entitled “A Philosopher’s Nightmare” which states that “It was impossible… that the whole of his experience could be an illusion since the terms “real’ and “illusory” were so related that it was necessary that some things should be real in order that other things could be illusory.” (Menton 118) In attempt to prove that there was reality, Menton shows the concept of both real and illusionary objects had to coexist in order to discern the two. The main problem, he went on to add, was what he had been taught what was meant by the expressions real and illusory. Anyone with upper thought will have doubts on what is real and what is not, the fact that one can argue with reality means that they have the capabilities to question everything that they have been taught and try to determine their position in reality for themselves. This does not only mean that these individuals do not fall into the masses of the ignorant, but are will and ready to govern what is real form their own perspective.
One of the greatest minds and philosophers of all time, Rene Descartes, had countless issues with discerning what is real and not. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Kurt Smith analyzed his works in a work entitled “Descartes’ Theory of Ideas”. Descartes he stated that “I am certain that I can have no knowledge of what is outside me except by means of the ideas I have within me.” (Smith) Descartes quickly realized that he had no means, no definite process on how to prove anything was part of reality. He had great problems even proving that he himself was real until he came up with his most famous idea, his famous quote reveals his findings “I think therefor I am”. This famous quote drove him out of insanity and the next step in his theory of proving that anything that he knew in the world was undeniably true. From pure analysis alone we can see that he knew no knowledge of what was in the real world except by the “ideas” and concepts that he knew. He determined that reality was his own interpretation and in that seen everyone interprets reality in their own way making it an individualistic experience. Another one of the greatest philosophers of all time, Immanuel Kant, struggled with the idea of what is real and what is not and he came up with the two-object interpretation. Also in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Micheal Rohlf translated his works and analyzed them; he stated that… According to the two-object interpretation, transcendental idealism is essentially a metaphysical thesis that distinguishes between two classes of objects: appearances and things in themselves… transcendental idealism essentially distinguishes between a world of appearances and another world of things in themselves. Things in themselves, on this interpretation, are absolutely real in the sense that they would exist and have whatever properties they have even if no human beings were around to perceive them. (Rohlf)
Kant attempted to prove that the real world would exist if there was no human to perceive it and in this interpretation this is true. There is a world that exists outside of each individual’s perception in relation to time and space, this can be proven though a multitude of methods. In essence this proves that there is matter in reality, but the appearance of such is still individualistic in Kant’s concept. Appearances are not absolutely real in that sense, because their existence and properties depend on human perceivers. This leads to the awareness that whenever appearances does exist, in some sense they exist in the mind of human perceivers in terms of the observation and the interpretation of such observations. So with deduction we can see that appearances are mental entities or mental representations and these appearances lead to our own understanding of what is real. In this sense all of our experiences, all of our perceptions of objects and events in space and time, and all “non-real” thoughts and feelings fall into the class of appearances that exist in the mind of human perceivers. In this regard we cannot know how things in themselves affect our senses, because our experience and knowledge is limited to the world of appearances constructed by and in our own perception. One of the first and most memorable philosophers ever, Plato, had his own concept that also added to what reality is constructed of. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Richard Kraut also translated his works and analyzed them. Plato had much philosophy on reality but the most interesting was his notions on the soul and how he was proved to be real. He stated that “We must recognize that the soul is a different sort of object from the body—so much so that it does not depend on the existence of the body for its functioning, and can in fact grasp the nature of the forms far more easily when it is not encumbered by its attachment to anything corporeal.” (Kraut) He played with the concept of an experience outside of the human condition, the fact that as humans we cannot begin to view this as real deems to be an issue; but since Kant and Abbott has proven that there are objects and dimensions outside perception that exist, nothing could possibly prove that a soul does not exist. Why stop at proving that souls are real? By this logic can anything be reasoned a part of reality as long as there is an idea of it? In an episode of South Park entitled “Imaginationland: Episode III” written Trey Parker the idea of how real an “imaginary” character is. A part of the dialogue says that…
Haven't Luke Skywalker and Santa Claus affected your lives more than most real people in this room? I mean, whether Jesus is real or not, he - he's had a bigger impact on the world than any of us have. And the same can be said for Bugs Bunny and - and Superman and Harry Potter. They've changed my life - changed the way I act on the earth. Doesn't that make them kind of real? They might be imaginary but, but they're more important than most of us here. And they're all gonna be around here long after we're dead. So, in a way, those things are more realer than any of us. (Parker)
This excerpt brings to the surface the idea that any belief that exists is real in its own way. Its importance from person to person might change but as long as an individual believes that it is real in anyway it exists. This proves that religion is real and every concept is real as long as one individual believes that it is part of a reality and is true. What is Real has been conceptualized in countless ways since the dawn of man. The best explanation is that reality is dependent on each individuals own interpretation of what is real in terms of our sensory experience, personal perceptions, and own individualistic beliefs. As individuals, our society, and our world move forward we can only hope to find some version of peace when trying to determine what is real or not but above all we must not just blindly accept what concepts are presented to us. In the words of Edwin Abbottt “...to be self-contented is to be vile and ignorant, and that to aspire is better than to be blindly and impotently happy..” (Abbott 103)

Work Cited
Abbott, Edwin A. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Start LLC, 2012. Print.
Barnett, Lincoln. “Einstein’s Relativity.” Class Handout. Pasadena City College. Pasadena, CA. n.d. Print.
Einstein, Albert. “The Relativity of Simultaneity.” Class Handout. Pasadena City College. Pasadena, CA. n.d. Print.
Kraut, Richard. "Plato", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Menton, Arthur. “A Philosophers Nightmare.” Class Handout. Pasadena City College. Pasadena, CA. n.d. Print.
Parker, Trey. "Imaginationland: Episode III." South Park. Comedy Central. 31 Oct. 2007. Television.
Rohlf, Michael. "Immanuel Kant", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .
Smith, Kurt. "Descartes' Theory of Ideas", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .