On ''what there is''

Seneca (4 BC) was the first who wrote ''rationale enim animal est
homo'' ( Man is a rational animal ). Since then rationality become
a kind of virtue which all people wanted to ascribe to themselves
with Popper who added to the virtue by claiming his own ''rational criticism''  as the highest virtue. But if we look at the human
history we can state that Seneca was the  first who formulated
''wishful thinking''. There is no such thing as ''rationality'' to find
in human history. On the contrary ; hate, revenge, robbery and
insatiable power hunger can much better explain human history.
Think of Egyptian pharaoh, Chinese emperors, Alexander,
Napoleon , Hitler, Stalin, Mao , etc. Our history teachers even
learned us to admire those creatures.  Way then should our
forum be characterised as ''rational''?   

Addendum, I forget to mention communist monarchy in North
Korea. 

@mahgister, I must not be explaining myself very well. There is only one reality. That reality can be interpreted differently but there is only one reality. As an example, the color red is defined as light energy with a wavelength at 700 nm. That is the reality. If we are all presented with light at 700 nm we will all call the color red because we have been taught to do so even though we are all having a personal experience in viewing the color.  Same thing happens with sound in a more complicated way.
If a system comes close to emulating a live performance just like the colors we will all interpret it the same way even though we are having a personal experience. I have seen this happen on a number of occasions. I use to work with a very high end Audio store and we were setting up these systems on a regular basis. As soon as deviations from the reality start occurring personal biases start infiltrating the evaluation. Which defects can you tolerate, which defects bother you the most? The vast variety of opinions you see here are based on deviations from reality. The "reality" has to be based on acoustic or lightly amplified instruments. Large concerts represent a maze of variables you can't account for. There are great live recordings many of them superior to the actual concert experience. But, you can't hear the light show.

@nandric,  sad isn't it? I prefer to call it primitive human behavior. Will we ever learn to overcome our instincts? All those characters are the same it is only that their weapons got better as time marched on. Thank god the vast majority of us are not suicidal but the Japanese Kamikaze should serve as an important lesson. God will not help us if certain people get a bomb. In the end it will be religion that is the ruin of us. 

@mahgister, I must not be explaining myself very well. There is only one reality. That reality can be interpreted differently but there is only one reality.

mijostyn I misinterpret what you said yes.....Yes you are right men defines reality by agreeing in a consensus...This consensus is defined by numbers.... And these numbers can be verified by an experimental consensus...

But then it lacks in this reality what is lacking in the numbers, the meaningful perceptive effect interpreted and also added on the phenomena by each consciousness...

We can agree about that....

I then apologize for my over reaction...

Miyostin, The ''shorthand'' description of truth is ''correspondence
with reality''. The other is to state that something is a fact. But
the general opinion among logician, linguist and philosopher
of science is that those are statement , sentences or propositions.
This is to say that the only linguistic ''entity'' which can be true
or false are statement and not ''notions'', ''concepts'' or ''ideas''.
When we look at older philosopher like Kant, Hegel, etc. we
will see that they talk about ''concepts'' ( Begriffen ) as ''things''
 that are true and are actually ''explaining'' the meaning of
concepts. Those are then put in ''opposition to each other'',
Since Frege and modern linguistic only statements are considered
to be either true or false (tertium non datur). However ''correspondence'' should not be seen as ''identity relation''. This
was Frege's error caused by his admiration of Kant. ''German sickness is the need to admire 'some' persons ''. Kant btw is also such person. So when in  Germany don't ever criticise Kant and Hegel only very cautious. 
They still need to discover Frege. So in this case Americans and
English (Russel) were first.