“Real” is one of those words that behaves as if it is doing ontological heavy lifting while quietly refusing to show its working. In everyday philosophical usage, the question “What is truly real?” often carries an implicit promise: that beneath appearances, interpretations, distortions, or perspectives, there exists a purified layer of being—what would remain if all construal were stripped away.
That promise is the problem.
It introduces a fantasy that reality, properly understood, would be what is left after relationality has been subtracted.
1. The surface form of the question
“What is truly real?”
In its standard form, the question asks us to distinguish between:
- appearance vs reality
- illusion vs truth
- constructed vs “as-it-is-in-itself”
It implies that some things are less real because they are mediated, interpreted, or dependent on perspective, while others might be more real because they are supposedly unmediated.
The word “truly” does most of the work here. It signals a demand for a non-derivative layer of being.
2. Hidden ontological commitments
For the question to function in the way it is usually intended, it must assume:
- that there exists a level of reality prior to construal
- that construal is an optional overlay rather than constitutive of phenomenon
- that it is possible to access being “as it is in itself,” independent of any relational framing
- that mediation is a contaminant rather than the condition of appearance
These assumptions converge on a single idea: that there is such a thing as un-construed substance—a reality that would remain intact if all relational processes of interpretation, perception, and meaning were removed.
But this is not an innocent metaphysical hypothesis. It is a projection of a very specific fantasy: reality as what survives the removal of relation.
3. Stratal misalignment
Within relational ontology, construal is not an optional interpretive layer added to a pre-given substrate. It is constitutive of what counts as phenomenon at all.
To ask for “what is truly real” in the sense of “what remains when construal is removed” is to attempt a double move:
- it treats construal as separable from reality
- and then attempts to define reality as what exists without construal
This produces a structural contradiction: the question attempts to access a condition (“un-construed reality”) that, by definition, would not appear within any system of construal—and therefore cannot be posed, recognised, or verified without reintroducing the very operation it seeks to eliminate.
The result is a category error: reality is treated as something that could appear without the conditions of appearance.
4. Relational re-description
If we remain within relational ontology, “real” does not denote an unconstrued substrate. It denotes stabilised actuality within constrained relational systems.
What appears as “reality” is not a hidden layer beneath construal. It is the outcome of:
- systematic constraints
- stratified realisation across systems
- stabilised patterns of construal that persist across instances
Reality is not what remains when interpretation is removed. It is what persists through relational variation.
In this sense, construal is not a veil over reality. It is the condition under which anything can appear as determinate at all.
To be real is not to be unmediated. It is to be consistently actualised within relational structure.
5. Dissolution of the problem-space
Once the fantasy of un-construed substance is removed, the question “What is truly real?” loses its target.
It depends on:
- a distinction between constructed and non-constructed being
- the possibility of stepping outside all construal
- the idea that mediation diminishes reality rather than constitutes it
If these assumptions are withdrawn, there is no remaining contrast class for “truly real” to operate against.
The question does not reveal a hidden layer of being. It reveals a misplaced demand for being without relational conditions.
And once that demand is withdrawn, there is no remainder that requires settlement.
6. Residual attraction
Why does the fantasy persist?
Because it is structurally seductive.
It offers:
- ontological purification (reality without mediation)
- epistemic relief (certainty without perspective)
- metaphysical closure (a final layer beneath all layers)
It also aligns with a deeply ingrained intuition: that anything involving interpretation must be suspect, and that truth must therefore lie somewhere beyond interpretation.
But this intuition confuses variation in construal with absence of reality.
Relationally, there is no “outside” of construal from which reality could be recovered in purified form. There are only differentially stabilised actualisations within stratified systems.
Closing remark
“What is truly real?” appears to ask for the deepest layer of being.
Once that projection is undone, reality is not diminished.
It becomes more specific: not an underlying substance waiting to be uncovered, but the patterned stability of what is continuously and differentially actualised through construal.
No comments:
Post a Comment