Finally someone has brought this discussion into the area in which it belongs. The reference to Husserl was apposite. Thank you, Justin
I've been following this discussion without taking part - apart from a few one-line Socratic questions to Skip - because I see the question of "facts", or, relatedly, "things-in-themselves" (to use Husserlian terminology), as very deep and quite complex - even if, as many claim, a sublime simplicity may come into view when one has reached a certain stage in the investigation. Furthermore, I am very much aware that my own position in this investigation is very much conditional. Justin goes much farther than I can, indeed, my view is that he goes farther than philosophy can. (Not for the first time,) this post reminds me very much of the later Heidegger, where his search for the Being of being (Sein des Seins) leads him to language and expression which I understand more in poetic and mystical terms. This seems to me to be inevitable, given our basic position as perceiving subjects. Going beyond this is like trying to get out of our own skins. I doubt if this is possible in terms of strict philosophical analysis, because - despite Husserl's own attempts to "bracket everything out" - I see no way to bracket out the analysing subject. Concepts and language constrain our analysis to the phenomenological, making our conclusions, ultimately, conditional. For my own position (conditionally!), I see certain elements of confirmation in many interpretations of quantum theory as well as in aspects of Popper's thinking. I emphasise once more - conditional. I see philosophy - the search for wisdom - very much as a journey; a journey into the depth of things (phenomenologically perceived :-)). To use Heideggerian language, I find myself in the clearing, waiting for Being to reveal itself. It doesn't. At the moment. This may change. But such a revelation (orn might call it "apprehending") is something which, I believe, goes beyond philosophical analysis. And so, conditionally, I remain in the expectant agnostic position (philosophically) of atheistic existentialism. Francis On 21 Sep., 16:22, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > Husserl made a distinction between fact and essence. > > Essence is roughly the content of the fact or its meaning which is > subject to interpretation but not wholly determinable by > interpretation. > > In addition to the essence there is the statement of "facticity" which > basically means that the fact "is". > > You can look at the back side of the moon as an example. Let's say > there is a 500 ft crater on the back side of the moon. Now facts are > always in terms of essence so the terms here are "a 500ft crater" > which is meaningless or not, independent of its facticity. If you > refer to some experience, not necessarily one that you have had, that > gives meaning to the phrase "a 500 ft crater" then the term ends up > with meaning. However, if you in fact get the meaning of "a 500 ft > crater on the back side of the moon" then it still, "in fact", might > not be there. > > You can also look at something that unlike the back side of the moon > is right in front of you and, for a time, choose to not consider what > it is. You still realize that there is an experience you are having > and it has a correlate that is there, or, perhaps better, happening. > You can choose to examine it. It is from those correlates that the > meaning of that which we don't see it constituted and without those > references the meaning itself falls away into nothingness. > > The real problem is when you consider essentially the fact of > facticity itself or the essence of facticity if you will its > "manifestation" in meaning. It is difficult to know how do give it > meaning.... difficult but when known...or seen... when one sees that > one is confronted by the "facting" of the world and that this is not > "semblence" or 'mere appearance" then the absolute nature of Being is > encountered. It is neither external nor internal. Then all kinds of > strange things come out of your mouth when trying to say what you mean > and people think you haven't a clue and that you are making elementary > mistakes in epistemology. The reality is that you have experienced the > meaning. > > People also have trouble with the fact of essence and often even with > the fact of history. In some very narrow understanding of being the > past "is no longer" which gets interpreted as the past "isn't". The > same with all meaning including Being. In that way of thinking to say > something is your "interpretation" means that it is inherently > subjective and, again, in that way of thinking therefore not objective > or real. It is "only" meaning. Not the "real thing". That is just a > failure to realize Being I think. The possibility of concealment will > of course always be there but that does not negate the fact of the > reality of the semblance as semblance. This is where Truth intersects > with Being, and it is in unconcealment or revealing that the truth is. > Some think there is some "other" concealed thing that is the reality > and we experience only its shadow but I think that misses the meaning > of unconcealment and revelation inherent in the meaning of Being. > > I could be wrong, but then, I could be right. > > On Sep 21, 6:39 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Umm okay well let me try it this way instead then. > > > I agree that that 'facts are facts and our subjective understanding of > > them does not change them' > > > What now? You and I have agreed on that point, you have won me over, > > I'll admit that my talk of subjective facts was wrong, now where do we > > go now that we both understand this? > > > On 21 Sep, 14:21, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 21, 7:19 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > Okay Slip, so we accept that, now what is the porpose of your stance? > > > > > Is it really merely to say 'facts are facts and our subjective > > > > understanding of them does not change them'? > > > > (seems simple enough) > > > > > It seem to me that in expressing such a thing you side with Rand, I > > > > for one would love to move this thread forward and get to the meat of > > > > the matter. You have said two things here: > > > > > The first I can only say is blatant lie by you and that is your > > > > comment about getting of the ride, umm you still take your seat I > > > > notice. > > > > (I said and repeat, IF the thread reaches an impasse then in a sense > > > it is a carousel at which point I get off the ride. Obviously some > > > have returned to break the stagnation, I don't see why this is not > > > clear, so you are rash in your attack and unjust in your assessment.) > > > > > The second is that you have just said you have no interset in > > > > discusing Rands Objectivism vs Altruism, > > > > (Is that what I said? I thought it was something like "examining > > > facts". You might try reading my post, not reading into it.) > > > (If you want to bring up something that you want to discuss concerning > > > Rand then bring it up and we can discuss it.) > > > > Blah blah...........Let me say this Lee, IF you and anyone else wanted > > > to discuss Rand's Objectivism vs Altruism there would be an ongoing > > > discussion instead of this focus on Slip. You kick it off with the > > > others and I'll come back later with my thoughts. > > > > I answered your question already and I covered that issue with gw, so > > > why don't you take some more time to read back so I don't have to keep > > > repeating myself, not that it may make much of a difference if you > > > don't understand what I already wrote! There is a breakdown in > > > translation and communication is hampered. > > > > I don't agree that fact's are meaningless without interpretation, it > > > is the interpretation itself that renders something non factual based > > > simply on the varying degrees of interpretation. > > > H2O is a fact and cannot be interpreted as R2D2, is that not > > > understandable? <(question mark) > > > Does someone have a different interpretation of H2O? > > > Do I really need to experience some mystical guru enlightenment to see > > > H2O as a fact? > > > > Too much nanoscopic pedanticism! > > > > so once again I'll have to > > > > > question your motives for both your stance re: facts, and for posting > > > > in this thread in the first place? > > > > > Ohh and by-the-by, you notice that little qestion mark, that means I > > > > was asking a question. I asked fif we could agree that that facts > > > > are meaningless without interpretation, I think secretly you agree > > > > with me, otherwise as I ask what's the point in your stance? > > > > > You might as well have said 'a dog is a dog', it adds nowt to the > > > > discussion, and is rather meaningless unless you said it it with a > > > > certian point in mind? > > > > > On 21 Sep, 12:55, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On Sep 21, 3:32 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Ahhh I feel we are indeed getting somewhere. > > > > > > > So we can agree that facts devoid of interpretation are meaningles? > > > > > > Think again, I never said that, it is the contention of GW. > > > > > > > So I'll ask again then what facts is Rand asking us to be concerend > > > > > > with and what is her proscribed way of interpreting them and working > > > > > > with them? > > > > > > I'm not interested in examining facts. If you want to examine them > > > > > then peruse through Rand's books and find her facts yourself. > > > > > > My only standing is that "facts do exist" and "facts are immutable and > > > > > not subject to change" > > > > > > I gave enough examples of facts that do not change by interpretation, > > > > > perspective or awareness of their composition. > > > > > > > On 20 Sep, 21:49, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
