4 ms·
But facts are only facts if they correspond with that to which they refer, oftentimes other objects, so when you include facts, ultimately it boils down to exte
by mykowebhn 5y ago
But facts are only facts if they correspond with that to which they refer, oftentimes other objects, so when you include facts, ultimately it boils down to external objects.
I think you also failed to include Idealism, that the world's fundamental construction is of Reason. For the uninitiated or the naive, the notion of Idealism often degenerates in their minds to Solipsism, but it is far from that.
- vehemenz 5y ago> But facts are only facts if they correspond with that to which they refer, oftentimes other objects, so when you include facts, ultimately it boils down to external objects. Only if ontological questions are legitimate questions about the world and not simply practical decisions about language. I, and many others, remain unconvinced.
- mykowebhn 5y agoWhat judges whether an ontological question is legitimate or not? In order to ask such a question you are implying that there is something beyond the ontological questioner who can determine these things. What or who is this ultimate judge? God? A phantom? A unicorn? When you write "I, and many others, remain unconvinced" you are already under the assumption that you, and many others, can be this judge. And what is it about you, and many others, that can make this judgment? REASON! On one level you bring forth an argument against my points about Idealism, but your implicit assumptions in your arguments bely your reliance on many of these same points that I brought up.