Alright, if any of you have seen The Matrix, then you have heard Morpheous's question to Neo concerning reality. In the matrix, Neo and Morpheous see a red chair and a television. Neo says that none of it is real, based on the logic that it is all of a computer program. Morpheous responds by asking how Neo defines real, i.e., is "reality" what is really there, is it what the neurons in your brain say it is, or is it something else? In other words, are the things in the program real? Now let's take a trip to the past with the famous quote "Cogito ergo sum," "I think, therefore I am." I do not believe that is the complete picture at all. I prefer my own tautology: "That which does not exist does not exist." Using this logic, one can easily see that the chair does indeed exist. It is there, so it must exist. I think that if you can point your finger at it, then it most certainly exists. However, the inverse is not true; one cannot point at something like courage or love, but they certainly exist too. What I am saying is that regardless of whether or not it is a chair, it definitely exists and thus is real. The profound question about the chair is now obviously "is it a chair?" This new question raises a very important point. At what point does a chair stop being a chair? I know I've heard something almost completely the same as the previous sentence, but I can't remember where. Anyway, I believe it has to do with substance and accidence, where substance is what its essence is and accidence is what it physically appears to be. Any ideas?