I think you should reread what I’ve written. But whatever, knock yourself out.
“For example: What is reality? Philosophers have treated it as a noun denoting something that has certain properties. For thousands of years, they have debated those properties. Ordinary language philosophy instead looks at how we use the word “reality” in everyday language. In some instances, people will say, “It may seem that X is the case, but in reality, Y is the case”. This expression is not used to mean that there is some special dimension of being where Y is true although X is true in our dimension. What it really means is, “X seemed right, but appearances were misleading in some way. Now I’m about to tell you the truth: Y”. That is, the meaning of “in reality” is a bit like “however”. And the phrase, “The reality of the matter is …” serves a similar function — to set the listener’s expectations. Further, when we talk about a “real gun”, we aren’t making a metaphysical statement about the nature of reality; we are merely opposing this gun to a toy gun, pretend gun, imaginary gun, etc.”
Source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordinary … philosophy
Just in case this is more clear than my own explanation…
Or, from J.L. Austin (thanks Abstract):
“Like ‘real’, ‘free’ is only used to rule out the suggestion of some or all of its recognized antitheses. As ‘truth’ is not a name for a characteristic of assertions, so ‘freedom’ is not a name for a chracteristic of actions, but the name of a dimension in which actions are assessed.”
One more thing I just found.
I just looked up “do particulars exist” on google and found this thread on another site: onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ … f=1&t=6789
My anti-realist claim is that the final post there…
…does nothing to resolve the issue.