>>41333881 (OP)
This kind of philosophy is kinda pointless.
It's like a mathematician saying 2+2=4.
Philosophers thousands of years ago already considered the "you are not real" philosophy. Why don't you try reading all of the existing philosophy and then come up with something new that nobody has thought of yet already? At this point you are just saying 2+2=4. Sure, whatever man, but, like... people already thought of that idea already.
Also, if you think about it for more than like five seconds you'll realize that actually sounds kind of retarded. What do you mean we're not real? That sounds kind of retarded if you actually let that thought sink in that we are not real. Of course we are fucking real it's the most basic fucking thing.
Again, philosophers already solved this hundreds of years ago. "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am." Is the answer to OP's question.
It means, because OP said "You are not real" he himself is real, because he had to think in order to say that, and if he thought, he is real. And in order for me to reply I am also real, because I need to think to reply, and if I think, then I am also real too.
Also this isn't even /x/ related this is more appropriate for another board like /lit/ or /his/ or something maybe, more apt there than it is here.
Lol.
