What's really real? 5 new logical fallacies about reality that i have observed and put a name to (probably not the first)
just a short post
The Robinson Crusoe fallacy: The assumption that a person’s feelings, desires, or preferences are not actually “real” because they are culturally or socially influenced, and that “true” feelings, desires, or preferences can only exist in the absence of society (often with the accuser’s own ideologies conveniently existing outside the definition of “society”).
Example:
person a: “I really love wearing makeup”
Person b: “you don’t actually like wearing makeup you’re just brainwashed by the patriarchy into liking it”
Person a: “how can you tell”
Person b: “well would you still love wearing makeup if you lived on a deserted island?”
The atomic fallacy: The assumption that things that exist on a more emergent level of analysis are not as “real” as things that exist on a more fundamental level of analysis, and that everything can be reduced to a more fundamental ontology without losing meaning or information about the system as a whole.
Example: “Love isn’t real, it’s just chemicals in our brains”
Example 2: “Tables aren’t real, they’re just a collection of atoms”
Example 3: “Cause and effect don’t exist because they don’t exist at the level of quantum mechanics”
The social construct fallacy: A subtype of the atomic fallacy, in which anything that is deemed a social construct is viewed as not real.
Example: “Marriage isn’t real, it’s just a thing that humans invented”
The nature vs nurture fallacy: The false assumption that nature and nurture are statistically independent opposing forces, rather than deeply intertwined concepts that inform each other to the point of being inextricable. Can also refer to the assumption that traits that arise due to “nature” are more “real” than things that arise due to “nurture” (can be considered a subtype of the Robinson Crusoe fallacy, although people who employ the RCF often reject that there is any real human “nature”).
Example: “Either men are more violent than women due to their biology, or they are socialized into being so”
The ape brain fallacy: The assumption that “real” human nature is characterized by base desires often being referred to as an “ape” or “caveman” brain and that social institutions have formed in spite of human nature rather than because of it.
Example: “Men are hardwired to sleep with as many women as possible so we needed to create the institution of marriage to counteract human nature”
Clever girl
What is "Reality" but a failure of English as a language of philosophy, at least. "Real" in English encompasses everything from physics to metaphysics. It's honestly not a very useful term without a lot of supportive details into what one means by "real".
Fables speak of hyper-realities, metaphysical truths that have no direct material basis but are talking about very "real" things. The Goose that Laid Golden Eggs speaks about short-sighted greed in people, a very real phenomena that nonetheless has as a vehicle a total imaginative fiction - there never has been, nor ever will be, a goose that lays eggs of gold. To throw out the fable on its physically "unreal" basis alone is the mark of the unimaginative Midwit out there.
But there are all manner of falsehoods that people construct that are not Truthful. Truth is the fundamental substrate that expresses itself into Reality, but is not Reality itself. Your list here is mainly a distinction between Artificialities and Nature, two modes of Reality-formation.
Artificial means human-created things, while Natural are non-human creations. Both are "Real" in the sense that they can come to express things in the material world and change how things "are", but here is the difference: Materialists point at that and conclude there is no difference between Artificialities and Nature, they're all just "Real" in a material sense and therefore infinitely malleable if only you know the correct configurations. Metaphysicists point out that Artificialities differ in whether they abide by fundamental Truth or not, whereas Nature is a manifestation of unmediated, objective Truth - therefore Artificialities that stray too far from Truth fall apart by their very nature of being oppositional and ignorant of the powers ultimately governing Reality.
When colloquially English-speaking Whites say this or that Artificiality isn't "Real", they are getting more at the dichotomy above, that Nature is a more reliable and provable expression of Truth than Artificialities that routinely express non-Truthful absurdities. Cultural constructs are "Real" in the material sense that they express in reality, but as far as Truth is concerned they are not necessarily reflecting the metaphysical "Reality" that would actually produce harmonized physical "Reality".
The consequences of Artificialities that ignore or defy Truth is breakdowns and malfunctions throughout the corrupted Reality. The dysfunctions of individuals and entire civilizations are due to varieties of disharmonies between Artificialities and Truth, and Nature provides one excellent point of observation and experimentation to discover the Truth and apply it in new ways. Some peoples respect Nature so fundamentally that it is instinct for them to short-circuit the thinking to simple expressions that non-Natural things are "not really real", and other peoples don't even recognize or respect what Truth even is enough to care about Nature as anything but an obstacle in the way of what they want.