Reading up on some Descartes are we?

Yeah, basic Philosophy 101 type stuff . . . really just an easy introduction into philosophy really. It's one of those old arguments that new students of philosophy are introduced to because it seems so profound! Yet, it's just sort of been left behind with all of the other dualistic theories, but it pops up from time to time.

One of its key counter-arguments has its roots in metaphysics. First off, what does one mean by "real"? Obviously, what is real, is just a take on what is reality. So, what is reality?

The problem with this question, is that things that aren't QUOTE-UNQUOTE real, like unicorns, do very much exist . . . metaphysically speaking. A unicorn may not be a physical entity, but exists nonetheless in a metaphysical aspect. Therefore, if to say YOU are a figment of MY imagination, doesn't mean that YOU don't exist. For, if I can conceive of you, then surely you must exist in some manner . . . even if it is metaphysically. So, does that make you any less real?

Now, you can take my favorite philosophy, existentialism, and say that well, even if you are or aren't "real," you're nevertheless not as real as I am. For example, what proof do you have that Brad Pitt exists? Because you've seen him in movies? Well, I've seen aliens in movies. I've even seen talking toys in movies. Are they real? But obviously, one would say that Brad Pitt is more real than a talking toy. Even more so, one would say that their own mother is more real than Brad Pitt. EVEN MORE SO, one would say that they're more real than their mother. And even then, under the basic rule of philosophy (that is, NONE OF US know what TRUTH is, just what truths are), you have no proof that you're real.