Not like you to ride the fence Chris. As one of the most stringent empiricists here you should emphasize the actuality of fact in empiricist terms. Surely philosophical challenge on the level of "being", in itself could dismantle the most basic human existence. However, we do exist, we are here, we feel, we dream, we explore and most of all we establish fact within our existence. Obviously fact is what we experience as reality in our world not construed with outer dimensions beyond our physical world. I know in my dreams there are occurrences that could never be construed as earthly experiences but we don't live in our dreams, we live here in real time which your alarm clock will reveal to you in the morning. Lee might argue that not everyone has an alarm clock but that is not the issue. The subjective is weak because it is a means of fragmentation which further weakens foundations. Our planet is our foundation, on which we are poised to exist, without choice and without direct control, we only live accordingly to what the world delivers, ergo, we are not in control. Experiencing the objective subjectively does not change the objective and perhaps the subjectivity is resultant of denial, failure to recognize, failure to understand or simply the lack of knowledge or comprehensive skill necessary to discern the difference. One thing is for sure, that is the it is "Fact" that you are reading this. Unless of course your not, which would be the obverse fact.
On Sep 17, 8:36 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we run into the same problem anytime we have a thread on > Objective/Subjective. As a materialist, I think that there is an objective > reality, but recognize that it can only be experienced subjectively. This is > why it's so hard to define what a fact is...is it the thing, or the > perception of the thing? I tend to agree with your hard pressed points > regarding objective facts, but I'm sympathetic to those who struggle with > that. > > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > No I don't get the point you don't have. > > The point is: IF data can have multiple interpretations, perceptions, > > leading to multiple conclusions the data cannot be deemed "fact". > > Facts are immutable and have no malleable quality. > > There are many facts that no one can dispute and I'm sure you can name > > a few. If you dare you might want to dispute some facts concerning > > our solar system or the fact that if you chop your hand off a new one > > wont grow back or that castration renders the male unable to > > reproduce. Lee might waste time arguing some cryogenic sperm storage > > process but the point is clear; "Fact" at it's core is exactly that, > > "Fact". > > > Some Dictionary blurb: > > fact > > –noun > > 1. something that actually exists; reality; truth. > > 2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now > > a fact. > > 3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known > > to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth. > > > I find it all so simple and wonder why the conundrum. Facts are not > > enigmatic but simply truths. > > > The "Only" facts I've ever known to be false (pure bull) are the facts > > that come from witnesses during a trial or a myriad of other > > fabrications stemming from marital disputes. > > Of course those are just lies and not fact at all. > > > On Sep 17, 5:08 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Perhaps you are technically correct. But you get my point No? So help me > > out please. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > > > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > > > Sent: Thu, Sep 17, 2009 9:09 am > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > herefore, 1+1=2 is not a "fact" to begin with except as viewed by > > > hose who accept, understand and acknowledge it's numerical base. It > > > s only subject to interpretation by those living by an alternately > > > efined numerical system or those who would debate whether > > > athematical systems are simply human constructs. 1011 might be > > > iewed as one thousand eleven unless your a computer analyst, so the > > > xample presented in regards to the 'fact topic' appears to be > > > nvalid. > > > On Sep 17, 7:47 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > A fact is a fact but like all data this factual data has to be > > interpreted. > > > hen interpretation is added into the > > > > mix - the same or dofferent people may well view the same fact fropm > > multiple > > > erspectives. Case in point: > > > > most people would probably agree that one plus one is two. However 1 + 1 > > might > > > alidly be viewed as 11. > > > > Then again one plus one might be viewed as three as in the Law of Threes > > - or > > > ealian Logic or the mystery of the > > > > trinity. Thus the initIAL FACT is transformed into a variety of > > alterrnative > > > eanings depending on the scale of > > > > observation of the observer in question. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Don Johnson <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Sent:20Wed, Sep 16, 2009 3:06 pm > > > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > > > understand that some people refuse to accept certain facts. I also > > > nderstand that some people accept as fact what is, in fact, no such > > > hing. I don't see how this makes facts subjective. Facts are facts. > > > ither something is true or it isn't. Whether or not somebody > > > elieves it has nothing to do with it. I'm on Slips side of this > > > oin. > > > dj > > > > n Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand wants > > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really are. > > > <<Lee Sep 16, 9:57 am > > > > .........facts can be subjective as well as objective<<Lee Sep 16, > > > 10:17 am > > > > On Sep 16, 10:21A > > > 0am, "[email protected]" > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Umm settles what? > > > > > Ohh and you're welcome! > > > > > On 16 Sep, 16:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, that > > > > > indeed both kinds exist. <Lee > > > > > > OK! Well I guess that settles it. Thanks mate! > > > > > > On Sep 16, 9:57 am, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Bwahahahah ohh Slip, you slay me mate honestly. > > > > > > > Listen very carefully sir, I'll say it again. > > > > > > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective, > > that > > > > > > indeed both=2 > > > 0kinds exist. > > > > > > > The point? Or why do I make this disctinction? > > > > > > > The point is Rand wants us to deal in objectivity, well when we > > are > > > > > > clear what is objective and what is subjective then perhaps we can > > > > > > move forward. > > > > > > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand > > wants > > > > > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really > > are. > > > > > > > On 16 Sep, 15:46, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Obviously, according to your expressions, if fact is disputable, > > > > > > > mutable through human interpretation and perception then there > > are no > > > > > > > facts. > > > > > > > > So shall we begin to dispel some well known facts as myths? > > > > > > > > If I stick my hand in "boiling water" it is not a "fact" that my > > hand > > > > > > > will get scalded but just a=2 > > > 0figment of my imagination, the imagination > > > > > > > that I perceive to "exist". > > > > > > > > The sun that I see in the sky may not really be there but only > > exists > > > > > > > as a result of human perceptions of...... "what a sun is as well > > as > > > > > > > how it appears to arise, cross the heavens and then hide beneath > > the > > > > > > > earth, or, the concept of the earth rotating allowing the above > > > > > > > appearances to occur..." > > > > > > > > If we attribute everything to "human thought" then the whole of > > the > > > > > > > conversation is moot, the interview with Ayn Rand was just20a > > dream. > > > > > > > It is not a fact that anything exists, in "nano thought". > > > > > > > > Note: The above post may not exist for some. > > > > > > > > BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!! > > > > > > > > From the Eternity thread an excerpt from the much revered > > > > > > > Justintruth.......................quotes added to "Fact" for > > your > > > > > > > convenience. > > > > > > > > Justintruth > > > > > > > View profile > > > > > > > Here is what I have been able to get from reading: Consider the > > "fact" > > > > > > > that 1+1=2. Given the normal meaning of "1" and "+ "add "2" this > > fact > > > > > > > is true. But this "fact" never happened. It is an eternal truth. > > > > > > > Eternality is the place of meaning - where meaning is. The > > previous > > > > > > > sentence being more correct when one understands that "place" > > and > > > > > > > "where" are not to be interpreted spatially. Eternality is the > > "fact" > > > > > > > of the being=2 > > > 0of meaning or a reference to meaning being. Consider the > > > > > > > "fact" that George Washington crossed the Delaware at Valley > > Forge. > > > > > > > Now unlike the math that did happen in time but the "fact" that > > it > > > > > > > happened is no longer temporal. The past is no longer happening. > > The > > > > > > > past is now eternal and nothing can therefore change > > > > > > > it. ..................... > > > > > > > > From Pat....Consciousness thread... > > > > > > > > As I said, the "fact" that we exist in a continuum implies that > > the > > > > > > > sys > > > tem is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be answered. > > > > > > > I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while > > we're > > > > > > > incarnate. > > > > > > > > Yes, you too Orn........ > > > > > > > > Yes too to the "fact" that one must adapt > > > > > > > to an environment…knowing who they are with. > > > > > > > > But Wait! We also have unfortunate facts........ > > > > > > > > Fran.........The ends justify the means thread......... > > > > > > > > The > > > > > > > unfortunate "fact" is that, despite the question of legitimacy > > > > > > > regarding > > > > > > > Bush's first term > > > > > > > > Care to rephrase anyone? OK so are we just tossing about the > > word > > > > > > > "fact", should we remove it from our language being that it may > > not > > > > > > > even exist? > > > > > > > > Fact is, oops did I say fact?, if we cannot conclude that fact > > exists > > > > > > > then we are in a quandary, it's tautological. > > > > > > > > Fact is fac > > > t is not fact is fact.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
