About two days ago, I was asked by a friend if I was a realist or an idealist. As I slowly took time to completely analyze what he’d asked me. My mind went on a philosophical brain burst of all the information I learn in my class and it went all the way back to the old ages. To my understanding idealists like Plato believed the world is but a creation of our minds, and that there’s no true reality. But Aristotle who broke his mentors philosophy pointed out that ” nothing exists in consciousness that has not first been experienced by the senses.”( pg. 107) Meaning things exist whether or not a human mind has perceived it or not. I side with the realist view of reality because it stands by two beliefs of existence and independence. Existence as in a chair, lava, planet earth, and so on all exist. Acknowledging that they do, we also have the knowledge of their forms. Chairs being hard, lava being extremely hot and earth being spherical and big. The very fact that the earth’s round is independent of anything anybody assumes to think or say about it. To further explain this let’s use the example of a falling rock. Imagine in some faraway mountain som completely random rock just falls off and not one human soul is there to hear or see it. Did the rock fall then? Or did it solely become real or materialize to our minds once we perceived it’s falling in relationship to our own reality. From the standpoint of an idealist, the rock can’t exist because we haven’t n’t observed it, even though this all occurred independently from our own minds, without us knowing. But we know it’s not true. Through the use of technology like a camera we can surely track down each and every second the tree was falling down till it hit on video. Therefore ruling out that first hand perception isn’t the sole explanation of reality and that’s what realism put on the table. It’s bring logic to a world of fallacy by separating the material world from mental thought.