Posts by Amanda Jackson5

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Look, just because a truth is general doesn't mean it applies to everything. Take complex numbers—they don't have prime factorizations. My point is simply that facts are more basic than truths. You can't have one without the interpretation process.

So, what you're getting at is that truth is basically just the end product of interpreting raw facts?

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:It’s necessarily true if it's formally sound and built on a correct interpretation of the facts. Facts themselves are true, just more basic. Like, take the statements "the road is wet" and "it's raining"—if those are the facts and you link them correctly, then the general truth becomes "If it rains, the road gets wet." Or look at math: you notice some numbers have prime factorizations, so if you use correct deduction from the axioms of natural numbers to prove it applies to every number, then you've got a universal truth.

So, what you're getting at is that facts are specific instances while truths are universal? That would be a pretty clean distinction, except for the fact that there’s such a thing as universal facts and specific truths.

Olivia Smith2 said:When you abstract, you're seeking knowledge. Simply put, it means grasping what truly matters while stripping away the noise. Not that anyone can stop people from rambling away under the guise of "abstracting," though!

I think knowledge works just as well whether you're looking at the big picture or getting down into the weeds; it can be both abstract and concrete at the same time.

Nicholas Gonzalez87 said:Yeah, look, truth is just a broad logical conclusion you pull from a bunch of relevant facts. It's like saying it's a fact that every natural number can be broken down into prime factors, whereas the actual prime factorization of a specific number? That's just a single fact.

A logical judgment can be true or false, but that fact alone doesn't mean you can just equate a logical judgment with the concept of truth itself.

I’m sitting here just as lost as everyone else, basically waiting by the mailbox for three days straight hoping someone might finally explain the nuance between what counts as a cold, hard fact versus what we call the truth.

Olivia Smith2 said:And that’s exactly why philosophy matters—isn't it?

Everything makes perfect sense when you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It seems like neither Wikipedia nor the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy really grasp the subject matter either.

Olivia Smith2 said:1+1=2 isn't just a fact—it’s more of a fundamental truth that physical conclusions must align with if they want to hold any water. Even the ancient Greeks made a distinction between mere appearance and actual truth.
We possess much more direct, axiomatic knowledge than we realize.
Take one example: God exists, or perhaps that God is love. With these kinds of immediate truths, you can't really find proof of the opposite. That’s where things get tricky—especially when people start swapping facts for truth, as I mentioned earlier. In a strictly critical, assumption-free philosophy, what one person considers an obvious, self-evident truth is viewed by someone else as something that still requires rigorous proof.

Look, I wasn't trying to get into a deep dive on doxa; I was just asking for the distinction between a fact and the truth, and honestly, nobody seems to be giving me a straight answer. You start by claiming that facts aren't inherently true or false, but then you turn around and throw out the phrase "true facts," which leaves me a bit lost. I mean, what would even constitute an "untrue fact"? According to Wikipedia, a "fact is something that is true." And if you look at the Encyclopedia Britannica, it'll tell you that "2+2=4 is a fact."

Olivia Smith2 said:Facts are tied to appearances—things can merely seem a certain way or act as if they are, which means there’s simply no proof that it isn't perverse. Truth itself, however, can never be perverse.

The issue arises in the scenario described above. Only this time, the premise shifts:

The truth is that metaphysics has moved forward, while the fact remains that Kant effectively shut it down.
The truth is that people still engage with Hegel, whereas the fact is that the era of pure reason has collapsed.

But how do we account for abstract truths? Think about logic or mathematical constants. Those facts certainly relate to the observable world, but they aren't strictly limited to it.

Olivia Smith2 said:Facts are tied to appearances—things can merely seem a certain way or act as if they are, which means there’s simply no proof that it isn't perverse. Truth itself, however, can never be perverse.

The issue arises in the scenario described above. Only this time, the premise shifts:

The truth is that metaphysics has moved forward, while the fact remains that Kant effectively shut it down.
The truth is that people still engage with Hegel, whereas the fact is that the era of pure reason has collapsed.

I already touched on my thoughts regarding this back in post #306.

Amanda Jackson5 said:So, if the facts themselves are wrong, does that mean we just flip the script and assume the non-facts are suddenly true?

Olivia Smith2 said:Nope—not quite like that.

Neither one, then? If there isn't any evidence to suggest the facts are false, we might just have to accept that they're actually true.

Olivia Smith2 said:Suddenly we're leaning on Aristotelian logic—as if saying something either exists or it doesn't is some kind of profound revelation, right?

So, you’re suggesting that we could use a dialectical approach to argue that facts are simultaneously true and untrue? I mean, sure, you could go down that rabbit hole if you really wanted to, but what exactly are we gaining by trying to reconcile those contradictions? Are we just settling for some lukewarm half-truth at the end of it all?
The way this whole thing about being versus non-being is laid out is just fundamentally broken. You can't actually have "being" as a standalone concept like that.

Olivia Smith2 said:Not really. They aren't.

So, if the facts themselves are wrong, does that mean we just flip the script and assume the non-facts are suddenly true?

Olivia Smith2 said:It’s true that Kant essentially torched metaphysics—but the reality is, metaphysics just kept moving forward anyway.
The truth is that Classical German Idealism hit a breaking point, yet the fact remains that people are still out there engaging with Hegel.

"In this day and age, Hegel's reputation has plummeted so far that calling a theory Hegelian has become almost an insult. And yet, at the turn of the millennium, it suddenly dawned on many that Hegel didn't just predict nearly all the philosophical developments that followed him, but actually critiqued them quite successfully. Nowadays, when being a 'postmodernist' is the trendy label to grab, it’s honestly pretty silly—though admittedly very common—to dive into a philosophical project without having any deep roots in the Hegelian method."

David Gray Carlson, "a Commentary on Hegel's science of Logic"

Beyond those colorful metaphors, though, I haven't heard anyone explain what the actual distinction is between a fact and the truth. Are facts even true?

It feels like nobody actually understands the distinction between raw facts and the actual truth.

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Since multiple voting is technically permitted, I suppose I could limit the frequency by capping it at five votes per person for one's own entry...😁

Give me a break...😁
The idea hadn't even crossed my mind. I mean, voting for myself more than once would be borderline immoral.

steelridge58 said:Great

exactly as you put it

Festina lente

As far as being multi-topic goes, that isn't really an issue because we aren't even multi-topic yet,

🙂))

Just kidding.

There are just so many philosophical topics out there that you could dive into with real hunger,
- but I really think we should aim for more participation—getting more folks on the forum to actually jump in and engage.

🙂

So, looking at how things are moving, maybe alongside this week's Election question, we could spin off a brand new thread,
titled

neophobia—the fear of the new
(meaning that dread of change where people cling to old structures in every aspect of life, including social dynamics, which ties right back into the philosophy of freedom)
- and since we're already having such a heated debate, it could all sort of tie together into one cohesive theme,
so if anyone is feeling inspired, shall we get it started?

Basically, can I take the lead on it, or is someone else interested?

There’s actually a specific term for that called "misoneism." It’s pretty much tied to conservatism, which honestly feels like the real conversation we should be having here.

I’d actually suggest we carve out a dedicated sub-sub-forum under the "Philosophy" section specifically for "Metaphysics" or maybe just call it "Hard-core Philosophy," essentially creating a space where people can engage in some actual, heavy-duty philosophical debates without the distractions.

By the way, Hegel didn't spend much time rambling on about death. As far as I can tell, the only thing he ever really said about it was that death represents a "real danger to man." Whatever that’s supposed to mean.

Joseph Murphy10 said:Done messing around with him, I guess.
Just a little Rascal acting like some young Hegel follower

That whole thing was simmering under the surface the entire time. 😁
Everyone else just failed to notice it.

Unquestionable.

As Robert Torre puts it, the real question isn't whether there’s anything waiting for us on the other side, but rather whether we’re actually living while we're still here.

steelridge58 said:Look, when you storm into a saloon looking for a fight and start poking at people, there’s nothing intellectually sound or fair about that, so you shouldn't be surprised when things get messy before you ever get to hear any good news.

no way Quincy

No, because you already said you didn't mind. We're talking about someone who actually agrees with Goering's idea that the deer at Carinhall are happy when he shoots at them because being hunted is their whole purpose. (post #88)

You're forcing a context—or rather, a different one.
So, it isn't really
- it's more like manipulating the context entirely.

If you don't want to talk, you should probably just be honest with yourself about why. I originally wanted to say "more fairly" instead of "better," but then I realized you probably aren't even aware of what's actually happening here. Sure, it's provocative, but that's not against the rules, and I don't see why it would be considered humiliating.

You've got such a distorted view of things that you can't even see clearly.
What you're doing right now isn't an invitation to communicate; it's actually making communication impossible.

I'm suggesting you take a breather or just go take a break.

As simple as that.

I’m going to step away and clear my head while the rest of you continue this polite little debate about your collective, small-minded fantasies. If anyone actually wants to have a real conversation about Hegel, feel free to shoot me a DM.