Wargarden

"Truth the enemy of fact? How absurd! And for what end would one propose this? To straighten the spring that turns the hands? By far, not so. Though that may occur, but onward to those who see through without device. As achievement stretches forth to grab hold the future and make it so, its fingers are fact. For truth gives one nothing for which to grasp with. Truth is a marriage of convenience and understanding. Fact is neither relationship, nor thing. Beyond truth, and beyond understanding lies fact. Brute happenstance, un-clouded by simplicity or ability is fact. Be wary of those who claim to speak the truth, for the truth can only lead one as far as understanding, and in this all men are not equal. To go beyond understanding is to rely on fact, neither true nor false."

What do You think?

Keith Russell

Silly.

(Well, you asked...)

Keith.

Wargarden

Well written......
Well thought out.....
Informed......
Open.......
In depth.....
Responsive.....

Yes, I did ask what you think. You obviously don't. Maybe next time you hit and run, you should use more than a mental go-cart. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

But, thanks for at least reading it.

Keith Russell

Wargarden asked: "Truth the enemy of fact? How absurd!"

Keith: Agreed. It is absurd that truth is the enemy of fact. I believe that 'facts' are the handmaidens of 'truth'.

Wargarden: And for what end would one propose this? To straighten the spring that turns the hands? By far, not so. Though that may occur, but onward to those who see through without device.

Keith: Straighten what 'spring'? The spring which turns what 'hands'' To see through what? With what device? I mean, poetics is fine if your audience already knows what you're talking about and simply wants to enjoy a bit of artifice. But, for philosophic discussions of 'truth' and 'fact, poetics doesn't cut it--obviously.

Wargarden: As achievement stretches forth to grab hold the future and make it so, its fingers are fact. For truth gives one nothing for which to grasp with.

Keith: Why would truth need to grasp? Truth is what one is trying to grasp; truth is not used to grasp something else. There isn't anything beyond 'truth', anyway.

Wargarden: Truth is a marriage of convenience and understanding.

Keith: I disagree--vehemently! An understanding of truth results from rational evalautions. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'convenience'.

Wargarden: Fact is neither relationship, nor thing. Beyond truth, and beyond understanding lies fact.

Keith: You're rambling, but I still disagree. Facts lead to truth, not the other way around.

Wargarden: Brute happenstance, un-clouded by simplicity or ability is fact.

Keith: Is that a fact?

Wargarden: Be wary of those who claim to speak the truth, for the truth can only lead one as far as understanding, and in this all men are not equal.

Keith: Well, are you claiming to 'speak the truth', and should I thus be wary of you? Men are not equal in most things--women either. This shouldn't bother you--it's simply a fact.

Wargarden: To go beyond understanding is to rely on fact, neither true nor false.

Keith: Where does one 'go' when one 'goes beyond understanding? How is going beyond understanding, 'relying on fact'? What, exactly, do you mean by the word/concepts 'fact', 'understanding', and 'truth'?

Wargarden: What do you think?

Keith: Same thing I thought the first time I read this: silly.

Now, are you happy?

Wargarden

Sorry to have to get you fired up, but you're first responce really wasn't very fair. The second one I loved. All I look for is descent criticisim. Thank you.Gotta go for now, but I'll be back....

kingjames1

Wargarden, there are no brute facts, so-called - only interpretations of facts. Be wary of those who speak of "the facts" - they are often a dogmatists' understanding(i.e. interpretation) of what is the case. May I suggest Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations" on this topic...

Keith Russell

king said:
"...there are no brute facts, so-called - only interpretations of facts."

King, is that a fact?

Keith.

kingjames1

Russell asks whether the statement that there are no brute facts is itself a fact.

According to the tradtional formulations, a fact is that state of affairs which corresponds to a true proposition, that is to say, an actual state of affairs.

I am, generally speaking a realist, and so believe 'in' actual states of affairs outside of our linguistic and cognitive constructions. I believe in truth - but I also recognize the need for a 'correct' hermeneutic in interpreting reality.

A brute fact has traditionally been understood as the terminus of a series of explanations (e.g. why did the big bang happen? well, some say, it just did!)

In saying that there are no brute facts, I mean to say that every "fact" (even the hypothesized big bang event) is in practice an interpreted fact, i.e. understood within the context of a complex series of presuppositions, whether scientific (e.g. the validity of induction, uniformity, the existence of physical law, etc.) or philosophical/theological (e.g. metaphysical, epistemological, meta-ethical, etc.). Such 'facts' as the background microwave radiation that is pointed to as strong evidence for a big bang event are mediated to us through rather involved scientific constructions, both theoretical and physical (and no, i have no problem with the big bang hypothesis).

It is mythical to suggest that some facts are "brute" - that is, without interpretation, further explanation or rational exploration with respect to the other (interpreted) facts of the universe, all w/in the context of our theoretical constructions (e.g. general relativity, quantum cosmology, etc.).

This is plain, and I believe Wittgenstein did a convincing job in establishing his case in this regard. So, in answer to your questions, yes i believe that my statement was (a rightly interpreted) fact.

Some people, however, (traditionally called naive realists) believe that their interpretations of the facts are the 'naked' facts themselves, i.e. the facts in-and-of-themselves, the Kantian ding-an-sich, as it were --&gt; a mythical creature that has seduced generations of modern philosophers, esp. the positivists.

Hugo Holbling

kingjames1 wrote:

How would you arrive at such an hermeneutic, and, supposing you could, what demarcation criteria could you use to establish its correctness?

Keith Russell

King:

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I intended my question seriously, but it could have been interpreted as flip.

Thanks again.

I agree that it is silly to think that our interpretation (or even our perception) of a fact, is the fact.

You are correct, perception is only perception; not what is perceived.

Keith.