[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 94 KB, 601x508, 1602693431429.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16578840 No.16578840 [Reply] [Original]

>Is "there are no facts, only interpretations" a fact?

>> No.16578848
File: 121 KB, 1548x1468, 3CC6765F-13CE-4CE8-A1A8-42948D8585D3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16578848

It’s an interpretation

>> No.16578896

It depends on how you interpret it.

>> No.16578897

>>16578840
Since it addresses a plurality, can it really be addressed in the for of “a _____?”?

>> No.16578899

>>16578840
yes, it is a paradox... it applies to itself and everything else. this is just another way of saying truth doesn’t exist

>> No.16578906

>>16578840
I might be wrong but in that statement "interpretations" posits tacitly that facts are the objects of these interpretations (if not, what is being interpreted, and how do these data differ from facts?) and so facts must exist prior and perhaps separate from interpretation (contradicting the idea that "there are no facts".) Maybe if it were phrased differently such as "all we can know of facts is their interpretation" we might be on to something.

>> No.16578912

>>16578840
no, it is simply false

>> No.16578921

>>16578906
>Maybe if it were phrased differently such as "all we can know of facts is their interpretation" we might be on to something.

This is precisely what is meant

>> No.16578923

>>16578899
Sure it does, CS Lewis said so in Abolition of Man. We're all living in the academic collapse he documented in that book.

>> No.16578984

>>16578906
>>16578921
That's not what's meant. It's not "we can't know the thing-in-itself, only interpretations of it" but "the thing-in-itself does not exist outside interpretation."

>> No.16578993

>>16578840
yes, and this apparent ontological gap is filled with God.

>> No.16579032

>>16578984
Then I suppose its on the individual to explain exactly what interpretation is in that case.

>> No.16579178

>>16578840
depends on how you interpret it

>> No.16579881

>>16578848
fpbp

>> No.16579910

>thing happened
>outcome does stuff
>values ascribed due to how it effects you personally
>facts or interpretation?
Yes

>> No.16579935

It's true.

For you, 2+2=4.
For me, 2+2=boobs.

My truth is just as valid as yours.
You cannot argue with this logic.

>> No.16580085

>>16578840
The statement 'there are no facts' cannot be a fact therefore it is untrue.

>> No.16580095

>>16578899
Or that truth requires participation
Obviously doesn't imply it requires participants

>> No.16580255

>>16579935
GIMME MILKERS

>> No.16580269
File: 154 KB, 512x378, 1602285849355.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16580269

>>16580255

>> No.16580275
File: 81 KB, 470x595, 1497816749098.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16580275

>>16578840
the fact is there are no facts.

>> No.16580276

>>16578993
That's lazy thinking, things we do not know or cannot attest the truth to cannot be credited to God.
>>16579935
booba

>> No.16580298

>>16579935
hmm... this presents quite the conundrum. if 2+2=boobs, and i want boobs, then how does one truly perform 2+2 in a non-abstract way to acquire boobs? that being said, if 2+2=4, then how even do you perform that? is it pure abstraction? does 2+2 even really equal 4 in the first place? because how do you actually get from 2 and 2 to 4? what is the process?

>> No.16580386

>>16579935
The truth is just as valid maybe in a vacuum-state, but the power of your statement is weaker because it's not meaningful to anyone other than yourself, and truth is a function of power for Nietzsche. Remember that Nietzsche does not think that truth is the most important value, power is.

>> No.16580658

>>16580386 #
Reality exists objectively, and independently of our interpretations of it.
Truth is a function of a demonstrable alignment with reality, not a function of power, and Nietzsche can suck my weiner.

>> No.16580913

>>16580658
Your reality isn't my reality. Realities are subjective. We are animals part of an aimless evolutionary chain. Our interpretations and ideas develop from our animal instincts. These instincts express what quantum of power we are in the world. The quantum of power you are determines your reality.

>> No.16581160

>>16580913
We occupy the same world and the same reality. The only difference is interpretation, and even so, an interpretation is incorrect if incongruous with reality. The gravitational constant remains the same whether or not a sentient being discovers it.

>> No.16581214

>>16581160
>We occupy the same world and the same reality.
They are only knowable as interpretations. We have no claim on knowledge of anything other than interpretation; therefore, measuring the validity of interpretations based on this wholly unknowable thing is unreasonable.

>> No.16581228

>>16578840
The reason why an apple falls to the ground is because it wants earthmommy milkers

>> No.16581236

>>16581228
counterpoint: gravity was willed into existence by the planet to pull big milkers down towards itself.

>> No.16581316

>>16581214
>they are only knowable as interpretations
No, some things can be proven objectively, otherwise your cell phone wouldn't work. Your worldview is based on sophistry, and no amount of mental gymnastics can prove that objective reality, the reality we both share and observe, doesn't exist.

>> No.16581343

>>16581316
A cell phone and its functions aren't objective things... other animals look at cell phones as meaningless shapes.

>> No.16581377

>>16581343
God damn it I'm being trolled. The problem is there are people in universities who are actually this deluded.
Welp, you win, time to drive my flying saucer to the sky castle I willed into existence.

>> No.16581405

>>16581377
You're right, I DO win, because you're incapable of recognizing yourself as another animal currently undergoing change, whose thoughts and ideas are a result of your transient form, because you haven't read enough philosophy.

>time to drive my flying saucer to the sky castle I willed into existence.
This has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

>> No.16581407
File: 190 KB, 128x128, IMG_0349.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16581407

>>16581236
Kek

>> No.16581500

>>16581405
Reading philosophy makes you crazy? I'll be sure to avoid it.

"The laws of physics don't real, bro, it's just arbitrary interpretations."
This is why STEM majors hate humanities fags.
"Reality doesn't reall because some dead guy in a top hat said so lol"

You'll believe anything a rich fag with a typewriter says.

>> No.16581521

>>16581500
I never implied arbitrariness in any interpretations other than ones stemming from weakness. They're arbitrary because they lose to other, more powerful interpretations over time. Dumb faggot.

>> No.16581595

>>16581521
Do we both have the same definition for the word reality?
Do you understand what I meant when I said this >>16580658 ?

What word should I use to refer to the physical objects and laws that constitute the universe?

>> No.16581692

>>16578923
>CS Lewis said so in Abolition of Man
He has absolutely no idea what's he's talking about in that book. It feels like reading Peterson trying to tackle real philosophical issues again.

>> No.16581869

>>16579935
Is it a fact that I cannot argue with your logic?

>> No.16582003

>>16581869
Pretty much. Look at this guy>>16581343
>>16580913
He cant even agree with me that we live in a universe.

>> No.16582060

>>16581500
>Reading philosophy makes you crazy? I'll be sure to avoid it.
Why would you want to be sane?

>> No.16582064

>>16581500
In 200 years your "facts" will be shit off a scientist's arse, is what he's saying. Science isn't a path to truth, it simply contextualizes what we can garner through empirical understanding.

>> No.16582121

>>16582064
>In 200 years your "facts" will be shit off a scientist's arse
I get what he's saying. He's wrong. Certain mathematical and scientific principles, once discovered, will never change. If an alien race 3 galaxies over compared notes with us, their math would describe the same principles the same way.

>Science isn't a path to truth, it simply contextualizes what we can garner through empirical understanding
Isn't that the same thing?

>> No.16582258

>>16582003
So there are facts.

>> No.16582294

>>16581316
>>16581316
a proof is always subjective. ANd empricial proof is an oxymoron.

>> No.16582297

>>16582121
>Isn't that the same thing?
Science is based upon principles that can't be proven

>> No.16582311

>>16582121
>I get what he's saying. He's wrong. Certain mathematical and scientific principles, once discovered, will never change. If an alien race 3 galaxies over compared notes with us, their math would describe the same principles the same way.
Read Godel

>> No.16582347

>>16581500
>idk what a model is

yeah public education is a mistake

>> No.16582389

>>16582064
Read fucking Kant you absolute mongoloid

>> No.16582427

>>16581500
>This is why STEM majors hate humanities fags.
Because engineers can't into epistemology? Genuine physicists are philosophical literate.

>> No.16582430

>>16582121
>Certain mathematical and scientific principles, once discovered, will never change.
There’s no way of knowing that. People used to think that Euclidian geometry was the only geometry, until non-Euclidian geometry was invented

>> No.16582653

>>16579935
From my relative point of view this is wrong and you can't argue with this

>> No.16582688

>>16578923
Seething

>> No.16582703

>>16582430
Non-Euclidean geometry didn't invalidate or destroy Euclidean geometry once invented.

>> No.16582816

>>16582258
Yes, there are facts. I was being sarcastic before.
>>16582294
Your either a troll, or completely retarded.
>>16582297
What does this even mean? Are you all insane?
>>16582311
I'm not going to read something that damages my brain. Wtf is wrong with you people?
>>16582430
Euclidean geometry is still valid. Non-euclidean geometries are just more complete.

>> No.16582845

>>16582703
No, but they did show that Euclidean geometry was an incomplete description. There’s also zero guarantee that it will forever remain true, as is the case with any description and any system of description, which is what math ultimately is

>> No.16582859

>>16582845
>There’s also zero guarantee that it will forever remain true, as is the case with any description and any system of description, which is what math ultimately is

Even something as straightforward as 2+2=4?

>> No.16582866

>>16579935
Based and boobspilled

>> No.16582879

>>16582845
Euclidean geometry does remain true. It wasn't proven false by the addition of the other systems.

>> No.16582881

>>16582859
That depends heavily on the thing you’re describing. What does 2 dBm + 2 dBm equal?

>> No.16582885

>>16582879
>Euclidean geometry does remain true.
Yes, by it’s own axioms

>> No.16582917

>>16582881
dBm as in decibels? You nonce, there is a system for calculating decibels, and it doesn't disprove 2+2=4.
>>16582885
No, it remains true because it's still true. Sometimes mathematical models are disproven by later discoveries, but not this one.

>> No.16582918

>>16578848
This, get over it op

>> No.16582935

>>16582918
Philosophy gives you brain damage. Change my mind.

>> No.16582956

>>16578840
False. There is fact, but it eludes humans because our brains can only interpret.

>> No.16582992

>>16582956
Not according to this retard >>16578984

>> No.16583036

>>16578848
how do I get a gf though?

>> No.16583128

>>16582917
>No, it remains true because it's still true.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever

>> No.16583149

>>16581595
>What word should I use to refer to the physical objects and laws that constitute the universe?
"Subjective," which means "pertaining to an individual/subject."

>>16582956
>There is fact, but it eludes humans because our brains can only interpret.
It's possible, but it's not necessarily the case, and whatever is left to be factual has nothing to do with time and space.

>> No.16583699

>>16578840
Philosophy is less about trying to finalize your status as "right" or "wrong" and more about trying to encourage the practitioner to think critically.

>> No.16583775

>>16580275
You have to be precise. You can only say that there is one fact, which is the fact that there are no facts except the fact that there are no other facts than this one fact.

>> No.16583800

>>16583699
God damn Aristotelians. They are all about rhetorics. You say you want people to think critically, but what you actually do is a huge distraction from what's really going on. The world could be going in flames in front of your very eyes, yet you tell people to waste time with thinking critically while the real flame people resident in their fire resistant palaces and watch the world burn and laugh about all the 'critical thinkers'.

>> No.16583844

>>16578840
no

>> No.16583856

>>16578984
The thing in itself is not human. We simply don't and can't know if it exists. It's not our business. Time, space, experience, Dasein prevent us from witnessing the thing in itself. It could be there though.

>> No.16583861

>>16579935
based retard

>> No.16583888

>>16583856
How much of this thing-in-itself have we placed in it, though? Is it really a "thing"? Is there even a dichotomy — and would there be anything left to talk about on the matter if there wasn't?

>> No.16584795

>>16582816
>What does this even mean? Are you all insane?
It's a pretty common knowledge in epistemology that all means of knowledge rely on circular axioms. This doesn't mean they are invalid, just that there are limitations to what we can know. It's actually one of the more fun fields of philosophy.

>> No.16584831

>>16581316
>Your worldview is based on sophistry
The statement that "'there are no facts, interpretations' is a fact" is a sophistic statement. It relies on the limited medium of language to convey its point. To really understand a statement like that, you need to be able to think laterally and without words.

>> No.16584990

>>16583888
>Is it really a thing?

I don't know the English term, but in german I'd prefer to call it the Hegelian An-Sich-Sein instead of the Kantian Ding-An-Sich. English would be something like Being-In-Itself vs. Kantian Thing-in-Itself. I think the category of being is much more likely to be in-itself than a concrete thing-in-itself because things usually are, as you put it, stated by humans, be it via experience, imagination and thinking. The category of being on the other hand precedes human life.

>> No.16585115

>>16584990
>The category of being on the other hand precedes human life.
Is "being" for Hegel the same as becoming, in the Heraclitean sense? Why use "being" if so? As I understand it, a being is a subject, which is a thing, which takes up space, and because time and space are a continuum, space could not precede time, therefore being as it is understood by humans could not precede human life.