• ENOAH
    925
    because it is not an interpretation to say that the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible. It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase.Arcane Sandwich

    But, by fact do you mean Truth? Because I think that's up to interpretation. And, if fact and Truth are not the same, what is the difference? Does Truth even deal in difference?
  • Tom Storm
    9.5k
    Arcane Sandwich was banned.
  • ENOAH
    925
    sorry to hear that. Thank you
  • flannel jesus
    2.2k
    It is, instead just a brute fact.Arcane Sandwich

    That's not what a brute fact means in philosophy. A brute fact isn't just "a fact we can confirm". A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts.

    We can explain why the bible doesn't mention those places. Simply, the civilizations that produced the bible didn't know about them.
  • Banno
    26.4k
    One can still interpret that his/her country somehow appears in the Bible.Zebeden

    "Confabulate" would be a better term.
  • MoK
    1.2k

    He was unfortunately banned.
  • flannel jesus
    2.2k
    Dang, didn't think mistaking what a brute fact was is ban worthy.
  • Banno
    26.4k
    A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts.flannel jesus

    It would be better to say that a brute fact does not have any further explanation.

    it's not just that the explanation is not available to us, but that things just are that way.

    Don't worry - there was more involved in banning Sandwich. You are safe.
  • flannel jesus
    2.2k
    i was merely jesting. what was the reason?
  • 180 Proof
    15.7k
    It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. — Arcane Sandwich
    Babylon (OT).

    Rome (NT).
  • Hanover
    13.2k
    Jesus was not mentioned in Genesis. It was written well before his birth, yet he is found throughout it for those looking. https://www.pursuegod.org/jig/

    Whether there is a turtle riding a horse in the clouds in the sky depends upon what your purpose is for cloud gazing. Are you looking for inspiration or are you trying to figure out if it's going to rain? I would think if the former, you wouldn't ask a meteorologist what's in the clouds, nor do I think you would be confused as to the different ways clouds might be interpreted.

    One could believe the clouds hold inspiration and precipitation simultaneously without being troubled by the fact that they hold those two things in very different ways.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.

×
We use cookies and similar methods to recognize visitors and remember their preferences.