No - because there are no "facts" in the spiritual realm the same way there are "facts" in the empirical realm. So yes, it is the relationship between a proposition and a spiritual reality, which "facts" don't adequately describe, possibly because the participant is also always involved in what the spiritual reality is. If facts are snow flakes, then that which describes spiritual reality would be alike drops of water. — Agustino
Why would I say that? They do correspond - although in a loose fashion. But the underlying reality is such that saying "this is like this" becomes impossible - once it is said, it changes the underlying reality, which is no longer precisely as described (although neither is it completely different from the description). Much alike quantum mechanics - acts of observation, in this case acts of becoming aware of what the facts are, makes them become different and change. In quantum mechanics, the nature of particles are such that - they don't have a precise combination of position/momentum. So the nature of spiritual reality is such that we can't achieve the precision that we can achieve in the empirical world - and thus we can't speak of facts. In other words, the distinction between being and non-being becomes blurred - becomes more like a gradation than a yes/no switch.Not that I can make any sense out of why spiritual reality wouldn't be factual, but so then you'd say that spiritual truths do not fit under correspondence theory? — Terrapin Station
Because whether we identify facts with being true, as would be shown by the equivalence of 'It is true that the cat is on the mat' with 'it is a fact that the cat is on he mat', or identify facts with being actual as would be shown by the equivalence of 'the cat being on the mat is factual' with the cat being on the mat is an actuality' ( and neither of these equivalences is perfectly coherent, in any case), the problems with saying that facts exist, or actualities exist are still similar to the problem with saying that truths exists. Truths, facts and actualities all obtain. Even actualities do not exist; rather actualityis existence. And you still haven't given any explanation of what it could mean for something to 'obtain ontologically' as opposed for it merely to obtain. That's what you still need to do if you want to show that your position involves a coherent difference that makes a difference. — John
Why would I say that? — Agustino
So you started asking me yes or no questions as well? >:OBut when I asked you if spiritual truths are truths by virtue of being a relationship between a proposition and states of affairs, you responded with "No." — Terrapin Station
Facts can describe/be states of affairs which are not affected by your very observation of or interaction with them. There is a tree in the garden - that's not changing based on my observation of it or immediate interaction. The tree doesn't suddenly disappear after I make the observation. But in the spiritual world, when I say, for example "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", the underlying "fact" described is unlike the fact of "there is a tree in the garden". To have evidence for faith, you must have faith - so your very participation is part of what creates the underlying spiritual reality - the underlying spiritual reality is not INDEPENDENT of what you do (the way the existence of the tree outside is independent of the attitude you have towards it). So if you don't have faith, then there is no evidence for faith. But if you do, then there is evidence. That's what the spiritual truth says, and of course there are degrees of faith, and therefore degrees of evidence too, and so forth.I don't know why sense would matter. "Facts is facts," even if there are two senses (whatever those senses would be). And if your characterization of correspondence theory is only one sense, and not the relevant sense, then that's why you'd say that. — Terrapin Station
Facts can describe/be states of affairs which are not affected by your very observation of or interaction with them. There is a tree in the garden - that's not changing based on my observation of it or immediate interaction. The tree doesn't suddenly disappear after I make the observation. But in the spiritual world, when I say, for example "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", the underlying "fact" described is unlike the fact of "there is a tree in the garden". To have evidence for faith, you must have faith - so your very participation is part of what creates the underlying spiritual reality - the underlying spiritual reality is not INDEPENDENT of what you do (the way the existence of the tree outside is independent of the attitude you have towards it). So if you don't have faith, then there is no evidence for faith. But if you do, then there is evidence. — Agustino
No but spiritual reality isn't like that at all. It's not crisp - it's vague. That desire is not only subjective, it is crisp as well - precise. It's more alike desiring something, but not knowing EXACTLY what is desired. So in that sense, what is desired isn't factual - and neither is it non-factual. Fact/non-Fact fails to describe such a situation.For example, if you desire a surf green Stratocaster, it's a fact that you desire a surf green Stratocaster, and that's certainly not independent of you/what you do — Terrapin Station
Yes, that's what I'm saying. That's why I said that in terms of spiritual reality, there are facts, but they aren't facts in the way we generally conceive of facts in the empirical realm (ie crisp, precise, and uninfluenced by subjectivity)If it's vague, isn't the state of affairs--the fact--that it's vague? — Terrapin Station
in the way we generally conceive of facts in the empirical realm (ie crisp, precise, and uninfluenced by subjectivity) — Agustino
Sure, I can agree with that!I would say that anyone who thinks of "fact" as connoting "crisp, precise and uninfluenced by subjectivity" has a misconception of what facts are. Facts are simply whatever is, and if there are things that aren't crisp, precise or uninfluenced by subjectivity, then "fact" can't connote those qualities. — Terrapin Station
The person who doubts their way of life don't have much faith, and therefore they don't have much evidence for their faith either. There's nothing crisp about this. As you noted in some other thread, I don't take my faith to be an act of knowledge for example. When I say I believe God exists, I'm not entirely sure what I mean by that."Faith" is in knowing exactly what to practice and think-- a belief, a ritual, an understanding, a feeling. It's actually crisp all the way down. So much so that it is a beacon that holds or someone returns to even in when assaulted by vagueness. The person beginning to doubt their way of life is called to "have faith," to turn away from the uncertain and the vague, to the particular crisp practice of faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Fact is defined in relationship with actuality. Fact is part of what is actual. It belongs to their essence to exist :-O like God! — Agustino
My concern with Terrapin, since he now apparently says that truths, facts and actualities all obtain, and that to obtain is to exist, is to find out how he thinks it is consistent to both say that truths and falsities are modalities of the same thing, and that nonetheless truths may obtain and exist whereas he would presumably say that falsities cannot. — John
I want to know, and he doesn't seem to be able to tell me, what the difference is between obtaining and obtaining ontologically. — John
If you're an agnostic please get out. Only theists and atheists should be in this room. — Agustino
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.