Nowadays, reality is something that no one thinks that they understand, and therefore are unable–or even interested in–to define it. In a world without a proper referent, reality also has overstayed its old welcome in the majority of consciousnesses. Whereas in modern teleology, reality is what is fundamentally debatable, nay, even the very origin of the debate itself, in its common meaning, reality no longer presents itself as a positive object, smoothly cut out. In spite of the fact that reality has ceased to cover any object, whether a fact, a thing or a judgment, it appears as an incomprehensible ghost on which nothing can rely; reality, at least in current thought, behaves like the fog that appeared towards the end of Waterloo: vague and uncertain, divisible and devoid of foundation, fallible and endowed with potential defeat. And it is not possible to say that, on these specific points, the same goes for reality as seen by modern teleology. Our contemporaries’ reality is confused, through a dereliction of rationality and logic, about the object it is supposed to seize, but doesn’t really care to comprehend. Thus, a historical event or a de facto situation will be considered “reality”; or a table, a flower, a tool, or an algorithm or fantasy; or furthermore, an absence of choice, a indecision. They have been told repeatedly that space and time are the terms or conditions of the reality of objects, be they what may. As a result, in today’s imagination, reality consists in anything at all. Of course, all objects, not only visible but all hypothetical, imaginary, fantastical objects, remain, real independently from our imagination and our conception. In this manner, contemporary non-thought gives a body to reality. Once this body is accepted, reality can come be forgotten, taken for granted, believed. It is the truth. And the critique against this reality, or more precisely the complaint against this reality, is to show that it is irrational, purely <imaginary>, fantastic, made up or whatever: a dream within any dream. This new state of affairs is contemporaneous with the rise of the digital society. The difference between reality as it is usually understood today and reality as it is theorized in modern teleology is clearly visible in relation to the category of truth. Only for teleology reality has a truth value. In the current, dominant view, this truth is completely unimportant: reality is there, indisputable, and so its truth is indisputable. What is subsumed under reality is true by definition, so to speak. This truth is practical, but in its ghostly vagueness it validates any sets of theoretical truths, and particularly categories of thought which, in teleology, are only working hypotheses. In modern teleology, reality is not the truth, but only its hypotheses, which bifurcates in theoretical and practical verification. In the current fogged up view, thought verifies any type of reality, and so the truth carried by reality is a proposition of inconsistency with the hypothetical constructions, a truth that could be theoretically true, or not, it doesn't really matter. In modern teleology, the hypothesis of reality verifies the hypotheses of thought, asserts firmly that it makes thought true by ending it, by destroying it, by accomplishing it. The hypothesis of Truth is the result of a hypothesis of practical verification. For modern teleology, the hypothesis of reality yields a hypothetical result, which goes like this:

Reality occurs at the moment a thought ends, is destroyed (nothing is said as to how this happens), but in the hypothesis this end, this destruction itself has no contour or content, and that is why it is ungraspable–this explains why you do not and cannot understand this phenomenon. But if we continue developing the hypothesis, we reach other conclusions: Reality forces thought to reconstitute, to interpret, to load the end of a thought with a content that it generally does not have. In this way of seeing reality, there are not real things or real facts–things and facts are only categories by which thought divides itself. In the end, reality is what ends, what destroys thought, and as a result we cannot see, touch or rely on it–reality has all the makings of unreality. Thus, we cannot say that a fact, a thing or a judgment are real, we should say that there is reality in a fact, in a thing, in a judgment. This means that there is an actual destruction, which modifies fact, thing and judgment, and which is irreversible, and as such indisputable. When reality is only what signals such a break, breach or accomplishment, but is itself ungraspable because it has no content (we can only grasp that which has content, even if it is empty), it cannot be the positive basis of the totality. That is why, in the teleological hypothesis, reality is an original reference only in the old dialectical idea of progression towards the origin. The hypothesis of reality is the end of things, and the end of things reveals their hypothetical meaning to us. Modern teleology continued this reflection through to this conclusion: reality is a break, the limit of thought. Thought is the contradiction to reality. The phenomenon of thought (the phenomenology of spirit is important because it is very precisely the indecisive, vague and ungraspable movement of totality) is the negation of reality. But this negation itself has, as object and aim, that which it negates, reality. Thought is only unrealized, unaccomplished reality. And there is nothing else but thought, unrealized, unaccomplished reality. There is no reality. Whether it is in acting or in what is “realized,” as is mistakenly said, thus in what is done, as should rather be said, reality manifests itself at the same time as what ends and destroys it: all and nothing; but also its negation is manifested, that which is neither ended nor destroyed, and so attempts to negate this end and this destruction. Thought is what builds and rebuilds on the basis of the fragmentary–ungraspable–character of reality, which doesn’t exist. As long as reality is not the totality (which can also be phrased: as long as the totality is not realized), thought is its precursory alienation, which can also be expressed like this: as long as the totality is not realized, the totality is the thought whose movement is determined by the breaks, the breaches and the partial accomplishments of reality. The preliminary question to the end of humanity is: will the thought of thought and the thought of reality split? Can a break or a breach defeat thought? In this case, the end of humanity will be what we call a catastrophe. Or can humans control the thought of thought to the point of accomplishing it, to find the thought of the reality of the totality–which cannot be grasped–by making the content of every thought coincide with the end of every thought? In that case, the debate of humanity on itself may begin: it is about the content of the accomplishment and the forms of its realization, and that is the end recommended by modern teleology. In other terms, we do not know what end teleology “recommends.” It is also ungraspable.

Today, reality is something that everyone thinks they know, but very few would actually be able to define it. It is essentially a referent, and this referent implicitly is undisputable. Whereas in modern teleology, reality is what is fundamentally disputable, and even where the very of the dispute itself has its origins.

In the common understanding, reality presents itself as a positive object, perfectly cut out. Even though reality can encompass objects as different as a fact, a thing or a judgement, it appears as a positive basis on which we can rely; reality, at least in the common thought, behaves like atomists’s atom: solid and certain, undividable and founding, infallible and effective. And we could almost say that, on these specific points, the same goes for reality as understood by modern teleology.

Almost, though, because our contemporaries’s reality is confused, through a hypostasis, with what it is supposed to cover. And so a historical event or a factual situation is considered as “reality”; or a table, a flower, a tool; as well as a choice, a decision. By extending reality to include the objects where it manifests itself, we give it space and time, an apparently clear contour and content, the contour and content of the object as we represent it to ourselves. As a result, in today’s representations, reality consists in acts and things. But things, especially, are perennial, remain independently from our imagination and our idea. Thus, contemporary thought gives material substance to reality.

Once this material substance is accepted, reality can become a basis, a given. It is original and imperative. It is a truth, static since it is already there, and will be there after us. And the critique of this reality, or more precisely the complaint against this reality, is to show that it is constraining, stubborn and narrow-minded, that its arrogant and undisputable truth impedes the imagination, this poetic human need, which allows us to breathe, through the absurd or through dreams. This opposition dates back to the “realism” professed by the Marxist counter-revolution, opposed to surrealism, which was also stemming from the Russian counter-revolution.

The difference between reality as it is usually understood today and reality as it is theorized in modern teleology is clearly visible in relation to the category of truth. In both cases, reality has a truth value. In the current view, this truth is a given, a priori: reality is there, undisputable, and so its truth is undisputable. What is subsumed in reality is truth by definition, so to speak. This truth is practical, but it validates entire sets of theoretical truths, and particularly categories of thought which, in teleology, are only hypotheses, useful in time, as tools for action in relation to the circumstances. In modern teleology, reality is also the truth, but it is a truth as the completion of a verification. In the current view, thought verifies reality, and so the truth carried by reality is a proposition of consistency with the hypothetical constructions, a theoretical truth. In modern teleology, reality verifies thought, makes thought true by ending it, by destroying it, by completing it. Truth is the result of a practical verification.

For modern teleology, reality is a result. There is reality when a thought ends, is destroyed. Now, this end, this destruction itself has no contour or content, and that is why it is intangible, imperceptible. Reality forces thought to reconstitute, to interpret, to load the end of a thought with a content that it generally does not have. In this way of seeing reality, there is not any real thing or real fact – things and facts are only categories in which thought divides itself. Reality is what ends, what destroys thought, and as a result we cannot see, touch or rely on it. So we cannot say that a fact, a thing or a judgement are real, we should say that there is reality in a fact, a thing, a judgement. This means that there is an actual destruction, which modifies fact, thing and judgement, and which is irreversible, and as such undisputable.

If reality is only what signals such a break, breach or completion, but is itself imperceptible because it has no content (we can only perceive what has content, even if it is empty), it cannot be the positive basis of totality. That is why, in the teleological hypothesis, reality is an original reference only in the old dialectical idea of the progress towards the origin. Reality is the end of things, and the end of things reveals their meaning to us.

Modern teleology continued this reflection by summing it up as such: reality is a break, the limit of thought. Thought is the contradiction to reality. The phenomenon of thought (the phenomenology of spirit is important because it very precisely is the undecided movement of totality) is the negation of reality. But this very negation’s object and aim are what it negates, reality. Thought is only unrealised, incomplete reality. And there is nothing other than thought, than unrealised, incomplete reality.

Whether it is in the acting or what is “realised”, as is wrongly said, so what is done, as should rather be said, reality manifests itself both as what ends and destroys; but its negation, what is neither ended nor destroyed, and so attempts to negate this and this destruction, also manifests itself. Thought is what builds and rebuilds from the fragmentary character of reality. As long as reality is not the totality (which can also be phrased: as long as the totality is not realised), thought is its precursory alienation, which can also be phrased: as long as the totality is not realised, the totality is the thought whose movement is determined by the breaks, the breaches and the partial completions of reality.

The preliminary question for the end of humanity is: will thought and reality split? Can a break or a breach defeat thought? In this case, the end of humanity will be what we call the catastrophe. Or can humans control thought to the point of completing it, to find the reality of totality by making the content of every thought coincide with the end of every thought? In that case, the debate of humanity on itself may begin: it is about the content of the completion and the forms of its realisation, and that is the end recommended by modern teleology.