But is it a panda? Walk into an ice cream store and ask for a panda. If they have panda ice cream your "authoritative" definitions are worthless.
If one had the intelligence to walk into an icecream store as opposed to a zoo to make the request, you prove my point.
It would be simpler if you used words like "legitimate" to mean "legitimate".
It would be simpler if you could clarify the problems you have with adjectives. In what was is legitimate acceptible? In what way is authoratative not?
I started out with a statement and then elaborated on it to clarify my meaning.
Why would you do that?
Was the opening statement incorrect? Partially correct? Did you feel a more refined statement was required to get to the essence?
Cough up that thesaurus that you swallowed and just read what I write.
The problem is that you are trying to write about philosophical ideas bereft of a philosophical language or framework.
Case in point with your previous statement about revisiting a point for the sake of clarifying something. And case in point with your following paragraph.
"More real" means more real. As I elaborated, more real means you have more confidence that it corresponds to somebody else's perception of reality instead of just being a figment of your imagination.
So the question remains, how can a "real" thing be rendered "more real" without applying some sort of hierarchy? And furthermore, what is the standard of that hierarchy?
You seem to be saying that a requirement for something to be real, is that it be perceivable to the greatest majority.
So if there are 10 people in a room, if 9 of them perceive something, that is more real than if only 1 person perceives it?
You don't have to assign any "quality" to it.
Maybe it's "better" if you can communicate with your fellow man without him thinking you're a raving lunatic.
On the contrary, its the inability to appropriately qualify reality that grants a raving lunatic their status.
If one cannot, at least verbally, acknowledge
why reality is better than illusion in a philosophical discussion, it comes across as extremely facetious.
Maybe it's "effective" if you can apply your collective perspective to the solution of a problem.
Otherwise, what does "first class" even mean? What does "superior" even mean? What does "central" even mean? They're just you putting your own ideas above somebody else's - i.e they're "less real".
You just put one of your own revised ideas (namely the idea of shooting accuracy) above the previous one you offered. I hope you are not beating yourself up too severely over it.
If you want to talk about reality as a homogenous field of ideas, there won't be much discussion or even internal dialogue. You will have nothing to question or raise protest with.
Come to think of it, maybe "confidence" wasn't the best word above. People who have their heads up their asses tend to be supremely confident that their perception is "correct". Having confidence doesn't mean you should have confidence.
Nothing illustrates that better than a fanatic, whether it be a religious zealot or a dedicated woo-basher, both equally ignorant and adverse to philosophy.
