Your getting closer but first let me say I'm not passionate about my point of view, just assertive. Your recurrent use of the phrase "so what" I take to mean that it is of no consequence. I don't see the relevance of vacuum in this but now that you mention it, is vacuum a fact?
I'm sure "some" people in the Netherlands walk around feeling like they are living above sea level but the fact is they are living below sea level. That is a fact, immutable, fixed. What is there to dispute? You say, "That unrecognized facts still have an existence apart from whether or not a human being recognizes their factualness 'I agree' ......(just remove "but so what?") There it is. You agree. Recognized "and" Unrecognized facts exist. Other than that I don't know what you are trying to dispute. I rest my case. > On Sep 20, 1:33 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Let me come at it in another way. So let's say I agree with you that a fact > is a fact. So what? Unless you select one fact out of the billions of > possible selectable facts it simply exists in a vacuum. No? > > It is a fact that you feel passionately about your point of view. That is > fine. But unless someone responds either pro or con or simply acknowledges > the fact of your fact then for all practical purposes it exists in a vacuum. > Or am I missing something. That unrecognized facts still have an existence > apart from whether or not a human being recognizes their factualness I agree > but so what? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Slip Disc <[email protected]> > To: "Minds Eye" <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Sep 20, 2009 1:24 pm > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: Objectivism vs Altruism > > On Sep 20, 10:32?am, [email protected] wrote: > > Of course Van Goghs painting is Van Goghs painting. That is a fact. And?<gw > > (Yes, of course it is, interpretation and meaning do not change it.) > > > It is a fact that you and I are most likely going to die one day. Those are > facts. <gw > > (Yes, physically as per belief. You say "most likely" but that adds > ambiguity to the fact. Most likely is not a fact attribute, it's like > kind of pregnant. > > > But without imputing meaning to those facts - the facts themselves are > > simply > facts. <gw > > (Yes, exactly, facts, that's what I've said repeatedly. To impute > meaning to a simple fact does not alter the fact because meaning can > be assigned on an individual basis. As with VG's painting, for one > the "meaning" might be Contribution to the Art World, but to another > the meaning might be an Example of a gross abomination, anathema) > (You assigned meaning to the "Object" on your office table as being > beautiful, blue, ashtray, however to a minimalist the object would be > rendered meaningless and viewed as clutter. Fact remains; you have a > "Object" on your office table.) > > > In a way who cares? <gw > > (It's not a matter of caring, you should know caring is an emotion, > are we attaching emotion to facts now? Beautiful blue ashtray?) > > > Unless a person attributes meaning to any facts - the facts themselves are > > by > definition meaningless and simly exist. <gw > > (It is not essential for a fact to have meaning, it can still be a > fact. It is meaningless to me that there are 63 moons around planet > Jupiter but it is still a fact) > > > If you are impressed with the mere fact of existing objects so be it.<gw > > (Impressed? I simply acknowledge that facts do exist, some may have > meaning and be pertinent to other issues and some may just be a fact > without meaning. Point still remains intact, individual perceptions > of fact do not alter the fact which you have yet failed to demonstrate > otherwise.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
