No, actually, my complaint is that mid 20th century a bunch of people introduced a new definition for it, so clearly not everyone agrees :) Before that, however

No, actually, my complaint is that mid 20th century a bunch of people introduced a new definition for it, so clearly not everyone agrees :) Before that, however, the situation was much more clear cut. And even still, 'reality' is mostly just used in the traditional way. For instance, the American Heritage dictionary's entry: n. The quality or state of being actual or true. n. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities” ( Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.) n. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. n. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality. idiom in reality In fact; actually. Now, if we jump to something like Wiktionary: n. The state of being actual or real. n. A real entity, event or other fact. n. The entirety of all that is real. n. An individual observer's own subjective perception of that which is real. —we can at least find one entry which match's the article's usage (the last one there). My problem with it is that redefining 'reality' to mean nearly the opposite of what it traditionally has meant is an underhanded way of pushing the philosophical viewpoint that no objective reality exists (which was held by the people who introduced this usage of the word).