Name a philosopher with a better definition of reality

Heidegger but nobody is ready to accept it

That’s not Marx, ya dweeb.

Umm. I guess I’m in concurrence

Explain though

What is it?

>real numbers aren't real
>only unreal numbers are real
Is this what he's saying? How is he wrong.
You can post one example of the materialisation of math to refute.

Dogen

Heidegger is totally interconnected from top to bottom, so this is all going to very paraphrased, because I can't explain everything at once without doing a text wall that nobody wants to read. In brief, Heidegger thinks that the problem of external reality, or the notion that this is something we have to (or even COULD) "prove" is misguided, and based on unclear premises. The main premise of historical metaphysics that he takes issue with is the Cartesian self/world distinction. Asking what is "real" implies that we, the asker, somehow occupy an ontologically remote position from which to even pose the question. We don't. We are already in the world, and the world is constituted by our being in it. Asking what is "real" becomes a fairly straightforward proposition, defining reality as the totality of the entities and concerns we are always already involved in.

Doesn’t this discount the fact that man can perceive entities from outside of this world. And by world I refer to the “reality” which common man experiences (where we ride the bus, see the trees, and count stones). Does the very existence of religion not prove that man has the capacity to place his perception of life from a perspective that is outside of the material plane? Or am I misunderstanding the proposition here. I won’t mind if you just copy and paste a large text user, you’ve paraphrased it interestingly and now I want the source.

To elaborate further against “we are already in the world”, but again, does this not refer to the material plane which our body alone occupies? This doesn’t account for the soul, aura, or any metaphysical component of our being. Now if he denies their existence then the argument if useless. But if one does acknowledge man to be composed of elements not wholly material, and therefore is able to be in commune with entities outside of this shared, material world, then does this not prove that man IS in a position to ask that question? As he can comprehend myriad planes of existence.

Lacan

>last digit
there is no such thing