4 ms·

> ...note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this so

> ...note that in the context of Dick's novels what is constructed is actual reality My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this social construction of reality idea. Additionally, I take no issue with Dick's usage of 'reality'; I have an issue with the article's. > But consider that there are even in our world actual realities that are social constructs. Think of social media. Social constructs are real—agreed. However, that is a very different statement from 'alternate realities are socially constructed' or even that a single reality is 'socially constructed,' even granting the reality of social constructs.

JdeBP 9y ago
If it is the article, rather than PKD, that you are taking issue with, why is the part that you explicitly quoted in order to take issue with it the part that was written by PKD? It's a quote from his introduction to I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon.
- westoncb 9y ago
  Half of my quote is from that, the other half is from the article. I'm not a fan of either's usage, but I take no issue with PKD's because he's just sharing his ideas and fiction; the article has set itself up in way like it's going to objectively present information on some things and people in the world. Using 'reality' to mean what has traditionally meant 'not-reality', in that context, is distasteful, imo.
  - JdeBP 9y ago
    The only part that you took issue with, and actually rewrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247811 to not use the word "reality", was the part written by PKD.
Udik 9y ago
> My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this social construction of reality idea. That would be in itself a good reason to talk about it in the article. I think Dick also had some mild psychiatric issues, maybe natural, maybe drug induced (again, what's the difference?). His religious delusions and paranoid ideation probably made him see reality in a much less clear cut way than, say, a physicist would. Anyway, I'd say that reality in this context means "subjective reality", the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real. I'm fine with this usage: its meaning is clear in this context. Nobody is trying to say that by believing really hard in it we can defy gravity or walk through walls :) The important thing is that this fluid reality idea rings a bell with us today. The world is becoming increasingly more complex and layered, and we're less and less able to see through the layers the underlying truth, whatever it might be.
- westoncb 9y ago
  > Anyway, I'd say that reality in this context means "subjective reality", the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real. That's exactly the problem: the phrase is an attempt to identify reality with 'the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real'. In other words, it identifies the objective with the subjective. It erases the distinction between reality, and what one believes is real. Losing that distinction can only be harmful in our world which—I agree—"is becoming increasingly more complex and layered". It's one thing to acknowledge the power of of ideas to shape one's perception of reality, but the particular tactic used here (of coopting the world 'reality' to mean something antithetical to its most common definition) is underhanded.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    If you are willing to limit your statements about reality to things that can be described by (hard) scientific theories, then sure, I'm on board with you (for the convenience of communication and language, i.e. for instrumental reasons). But if you think that e.g. the evening news represents reality and that people who deny this reality in favour of an alternate reality are harming the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all. It's all shades of grey, there is no binary distinction. That perspective is a political perspective, and it encodes whole piles of assumptions about what is and ought to be. Times were simpler before because the people were easier to fool, not because we had a better handle on "reality".

JdeBP 9y ago

If it is the article, rather than PKD, that you are taking issue with, why is the part that you explicitly quoted in order to take issue with it the part that was written by PKD? It's a quote from his introduction to I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon.

westoncb 9y ago
Half of my quote is from that, the other half is from the article. I'm not a fan of either's usage, but I take no issue with PKD's because he's just sharing his ideas and fiction; the article has set itself up in way like it's going to objectively present information on some things and people in the world. Using 'reality' to mean what has traditionally meant 'not-reality', in that context, is distasteful, imo.
- JdeBP 9y ago
  The only part that you took issue with, and actually rewrote at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16247811 to not use the word "reality", was the part written by PKD.

Udik 9y ago

> My understanding is that he used that as a metaphor for getting at this social construction of reality idea. That would be in itself a good reason to talk about it in the article. I think Dick also had some mild psychiatric issues, maybe natural, maybe drug induced (again, what's the difference?). His religious delusions and paranoid ideation probably made him see reality in a much less clear cut way than, say, a physicist would. Anyway, I'd say that reality in this context means "subjective reality", the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real. I'm fine with this usage: its meaning is clear in this context. Nobody is trying to say that by believing really hard in it we can defy gravity or walk through walls :) The important thing is that this fluid reality idea rings a bell with us today. The world is becoming increasingly more complex and layered, and we're less and less able to see through the layers the underlying truth, whatever it might be.

westoncb 9y ago
> Anyway, I'd say that reality in this context means "subjective reality", the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real. That's exactly the problem: the phrase is an attempt to identify reality with 'the complex of our individual beliefs of what is real'. In other words, it identifies the objective with the subjective. It erases the distinction between reality, and what one believes is real. Losing that distinction can only be harmful in our world which—I agree—"is becoming increasingly more complex and layered". It's one thing to acknowledge the power of of ideas to shape one's perception of reality, but the particular tactic used here (of coopting the world 'reality' to mean something antithetical to its most common definition) is underhanded.
- barrkel 9y ago
  If you are willing to limit your statements about reality to things that can be described by (hard) scientific theories, then sure, I'm on board with you (for the convenience of communication and language, i.e. for instrumental reasons). But if you think that e.g. the evening news represents reality and that people who deny this reality in favour of an alternate reality are harming the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity, I'm afraid I don't agree with you at all. It's all shades of grey, there is no binary distinction. That perspective is a political perspective, and it encodes whole piles of assumptions about what is and ought to be. Times were simpler before because the people were easier to fool, not because we had a better handle on "reality".