Bill Snedden

John -

I'm going to combine my responses to both of your recent posts in one.

Oh, John. We were so close. Well, maybe not...

There you go, bringing epistemology into the discussion again. How many times must we say that the ability to know whether or not facts exist, or what they are has nothing to do with the points Thomas and I are attempting to make?

We are attempting to discuss whether or not "reality" (whatever that may be) is any one particular way or another, regardless of our ability to perceive, know, or discuss what that way might be. Epistemology is irrelevant.

Interestingly, you make reference to "unknown (existential) facts". Does this mean that you agree that such things exist?


See above.

I can't see where I've done that at all. There is no necessity in either of my definitions. "Nothing" is defined as the absence of everything. "Something" is merely defined as anything.

The only necessity that is ineluctably derived from a definition is that the instantiation of "nothing" would mean that "something" could never exist. However, there's nothing in the definition of "nothing" I provided that makes it impossible for "nothing" to exist. It's only the contrafactual that "something" does exist that renders the existence of "nothing" an impossibility.

Do square circles exist? Does one have to travel to distant parts of the universe to verify their non-existence?

Even granted that there may be distant regions of the universe where there is no matter, there will still not be "nothing" there. The region would be bounded by "something" and would hence have dimension (a measurement of it's volume). It therefore could not be "nothing".

You're quite correct; our thinking does not make it so. It is so regardless of our opinions about it. We couldn't have opinions at all if it were not to be so. That's my point.

I think that's irrelevant. You're talking epistemology again.

Again, I don't see the relevance. The question is not "can we know the actual state of affairs?" The question is "is there an actual state of affairs to know?"

You are using "fact" in an epistemological sense; I'm using it in an ontological sense.

When we say "fact" in common language, we generally mean to indicate some relationship between the content of our knowledge and the external world. However, that's not the sense in which I'm using the word. "Facts", in the sense in which I mean, don't "come into being". They just are. Our knowledge of facts is, of course, a completely separate discussion.

I want to stress again that I feel that epistemological concerns are entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Read also my response to Hugo.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Thomas Ash

D'oh, honest mistake. Still, I knew I couldn't stop you responding...
Yes, I have my brave epistemologist racoon hat and sextant on my hatstand right now - it's a tough job, but someone's got to do it . Seriously though, the world doesn't have to separate itself into anything. So long as there is a world, there are facts like John's (no wait... Bill's) example of 'something exists.'
I admit I haven't read Rorty, so I don't have a full picture of his position.
Hey, I'm out there being a brave epistemologist while you're lazing around at home questioning the existence of absolute truth - cut me some slack...
Turns out it's "hoisted with your own petard." An interesting fact, huh?

Thomas Ash

Neat signature. Hey, how come you get one and the rest of us don't? Moderators!...

Bill Snedden

As epistemology itself is irrelevant to this discussion, I really don't see what the "anti-foundationalist project" has to do with it.

As one who ascribes, more or less, to a foundationalist position, I certainly am interested in critiques of it. I've actually read some (though not much Rorty).

But again, I really don't see what that has to do with the question at hand.

Ah, perhaps this is the crux of the issue. By "and what if it can't be answered?" do you mean:

A) we are unable to answer it for epistemological reasons (i.e., we can't know the answer).

B) we are unable to answer it because there's nothing "out there."

C) some other reason.

Remember, I'm not talking about our ability to know "what's out there" or our ability to describe it. I'm asking if there is an it that provides even the possibility of knowing what it might be. You seem to recognize as much in your final sentence, above: "The world does not split itself into facts and truths; our descriptions of it are our own." (emphasis added).

To what do you refer by the words that I have placed in boldface type?

I posed a question to John Page in an earlier post that seems apropos right about now. I've modified the language to remove some of the "content-laden" terms we've eschewed over the last page or so.

It seems to me that, as far as questions of reality go, there are two possibilities:

A) Only I (whatever "I" might be) am instantiated in reality; that which appears to me to be an external world is only a fantasy.

B) I (whatever "I" might be) am instantiated in reality and that which I perceive as an external world is also instantiated in reality (whether my perception of it is accurate or not).

In both cases, a particular state of affairs (a fact) is instantiated in reality (exists) and is so regardless of our perception of it. If it were possible for us to directly perceive and know this fact in a real and objective sense, we would assign that knowledge a truth-value of "true".

In essence, all I'm saying (and have been saying for many posts) is that existence exists regardless of our perceptions of it. Is that really so controversial?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Bill Snedden

Hehehe...if only this position had such perqs!

Actually, sigs are inactive for all members, including moderators and administrators.

However, you can place a signature in your profile. Then, when replying to a message, use the "preview" button to view your reply. Your signature will appear at the bottom of the preview window. It will not, however, automatically appear in your post. To achieve that, can cut and paste it into your reply, which is what I did.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

__________________
"The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is nothing but a short circuit, destroying the mind." Ayn Rand

Hugo Holbling

Perhaps not, but are you saying anything at all? If you want a form of foundationalism, where will this get you?

"Existence exists" isn't saying very much, methinks. You say:

... but this is no more than "existence exists". Where will you go from here, without falling foul of antifoundationalism? Is there any content to this concept of absolute truth, or is it merely a hope that there is something beyond the realm of appearances that we can appeal to?

Hugo Holbling

Well, we've already expressed doubts as to whether this "fact" is anything of the sort. Please offer me a few more that you discovered on your adventures.

Heh! The Dark Side can have its benefits - like central heating!

Keith Russell

Greetings:

What, ultimately, is the difference between saying 'reality is truth' and 'reality is neither true nor false'?

Until we explain clearly what we mean by 'reality' and 'truth', those statements are just arbitrary claims...

Keith.

Kantian

Sounds like any attempt to describe reality is merely comparing theories about reality.

How would you define the words 'reality' and 'truth,' clearly, and avoid echoing the divine nonsense of the goddess Ayn Rand?

~transcendentalist~

Keith Russell

Kantian:

So, you won't listen to me unless I disagree with Rand, is that it?

(On the question of reality, though, I don't disagree with her--by the way.)

Yes, a 'description' of reality could be called a 'theory' of reality, so comparing descriptions is the same as comparing theories.

But, at least you didn't say that comparing descriptions or theories of reality is the equivalent of comparing realities...

Keith.