Materialists may not accept the idea that there are different realities for different people rather than different beliefs about a reality. For them, only the first use of the notion of reality would make sense. For them, someone who believes something else, where the facts were properly established, could be considered delusional. [Citation required] After a little circular time in my head, I called a friend on the pretext that I needed her opinion. I didn`t really take care of their comments; I just wanted to let the link of my internal dialogue unfold. The peculiarities are that I felt that a teacher in one of my kindergartens was a bit abused. My girlfriend listened politely, agreed, and then threw some of her opinions into the fire. My friend`s well-intentioned participation and agreement consolidated my story and what started as a flame turned into a campfire. We analyzed the teacher`s personality and motivations, and analyzed what was happening from different angles.

Finally, we went up the lens and made the problem more systematic, a sample of the most important problems that arose at school. Our continuous convergence has continued to stoke the fire, we have settled around it and we are roasting resentment in just tones. If one considers the nature of reality, there are two general approaches: the realistic approach, in which there is a unique, objective, general reality, which one thinks exists independently of the perception of a particular individual, and the idealistic approach in which one assumes that an individual can verify nothing other than his own experience of the world and can never know directly the truth of the world independently of that. In societies where theoretic religions predominate, religious understanding of existence would be the reality of consensus, while religious belief would remain the non-consensual (or alternative) reality in a predominantly secular society, where consensual reality is based solely on science. The reality of consensus is linked to consensual reality, but different from it. The difference between these notions is that, while the reality of consensus describes a state of agreement on the true (consensus is a nostunon), consensual reality describes a kind of consensus on the true (consensus is an adjective). In other words, reality cannot be consensual either, as when the preferred version of a person`s reality is in conflict with another person`s preferred version of reality. Consensual reality is relevant to understanding many social phenomena, such as deception. [9] I often hear people talking about what`s going on in their heads, as if their thoughts were a reality. I only did it the other day for over an hour. I knew what I was doing, and I stayed there because I had some free time. “An inactive mind is the devil`s playground.” The call for consensus stems from the fact that people do not fully understand or reconcile the nature of knowledge or ontology, which often makes it uncertain, which is real, given the great inconsistencies between individual subjectivities.

[2] [3] We can, however, try to reach a form of consensus with others on the real. We can use this consensus as a pragmatic guide, either assuming that it seems to bring together some kind of valid reality, or simply because it is more “practical” than perceived alternatives. The reality of consensus therefore refers to the agreed concepts of reality that people in the world or a culture or group consider to be real (or considered real) that are generally based on their shared experiences, as they believe; who disagrees, is sometimes considered “indeed… live in another world. [4] Have you ever spent hours talking about something that bothers you? Do you call friends or family to ventilate? Do you think a solution and relief will appear if you excite it over and over again? How much time do you spend in the reality of the agreement We live in a world of the reality of the arrangement, it happens all around us all the time.