That's correct, the rest of the world is "determined" by its own narcissism. — whollyrolling

It's narcissistic to assume we're all like you :P

It's narcissistic to assume we're all like you :P — NKBJ

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true.

I didn't come close to assuming or implying that.

Few, however, would seriously maintain that the universe actually revolves around them in the way that the earth revolves around the sun. — NKBJ

My guess (and hope) is that people mean "the universe seems to revolve around them", from their slightly skewed perspective.

By what metric? What is philosophy... hmmm? and define true! — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Philosophy is whatever I say it is, and truth is whatever I say it is. And everything else is whatever I say it is. Because I'm always right. Because I'm basically a god.

True enough.

Fortunately for us, none of this matters all that much.

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true. — S

How could it be true according to your relativism, if others disagree? What you mean is that you believe it is true, it is true for you; but that means, not that it is a truth, but that it is merely a belief.

Except that it isn't. If it wasn't a fact that you submitted that comment, then it would be impossible for me to reply to it. But I'm replying to it now, so it's a fact that you submitted it. — S

Exactly. I was preempting what the discussion eventually became about, which is that the OP already had in mind a definition of 'fact' which determined his proposition true. Hence the rest of the discussion was pointless until you guys wheedled that 'fact' out of him.

@YuZhonglu. I don't suppose I can do a much better job than Terrapin in showing you what is meant by fact, nor than S in showing you why it is silly to have any other definition, but just in case it helps, one way to think about it might be to ask yourself - if facts are statements, then what word would be left to describe the object of statements? If I say "the grass is green" and by your definition, that proposition is itself a fact (the strong belief in my mind), then what is the word for the actual state of affairs that I hold a belief about (the actual greenness of the grass)?

There may be psychiatrists who could prescribe something to make his "preaching" go away.

How could it be true according to your relativism, if others disagree? What you mean is that you believe it is true, it is true for you; but that means, not that it is a truth, but that it is merely a belief. — Janus

I'm not a relativist.

There may be psychiatrists who could prescribe something to make his "preaching" go away. — whollyrolling

I don't need a doctor. I am the doctor.

So, now you contradict yourself. The claim that you are the best philosopher is not an empirical claim that can be confirmed, but either an ethical, aesthetic or philosophical claim that comes down, according to your own avowed relativism in such matters, to being merely a matter of personal (and in this case your and your alone) judgement.

So, now you contradict yourself. The claim that you are the best philosopher is not an empirical claim that can be confirmed, but either an ethical, aesthetic or philosophical claim that comes down, according to your own avowed relativism in such matters, to being merely a matter of personal (and in this case your and your alone) judgement. — Janus

No, I haven't contradicted myself, you're just demonstrating once again that you don't pay close enough attention to what I say.

I'm not a relativist, I'm specifically and only a moral relativist. That wasn't a moral statement. It was a statement about ability. You calling me a relativist is like me calling you a good listener.

And it was obviously tongue-in-cheek, whether true or false. (It's the former).

You are a moral relativist because you believe there is no empirical evidence that could confirm whether a moral judgement is right or wrong. How is the situation different with regard to aesthetic or philosophical judgements?

You are a moral relativist because you believe there is no empirical evidence that could confirm whether a moral judgement is right or wrong. How is the situation different with regard to aesthetic or philosophical judgements? — Janus

I favour moral relativism because I judge that to be a better position than the alternatives, but I can switch between moral relativism and a position like error theory depending on how we interpret moral statements. It just doesn't seem as useful to interpret moral statements in the latter way because of the logical consequences. All moral statements would be false or unwarranted. But I don't see the same problem with other types of statement, statements that seem factual rather than something like an indication of opinion.

I'm glad this has not devolved (yet) into blind insults. That's good.

My argument appears to be changing, or at least that's how it would appear to others, but that's because I'm presenting it in installments. Also, I'm not entirely sure how to summarize my idea, so I'll attack this communication problem from another angle- by providing the context and the background for my odd claims- so at least others will know where I'm coming from.

Imagine this: you're in a dark, abandoned house. Your best friend, hiding in a corner, jumps in front of you, and you scream like a little girl. The casual relationship in this scenario appears to be obvious: "your best friend surprised you in a scary environment. Thus you were scared and screamed."

But it's not that simple. What actually happened on a biological level was more like this:

"Sounds and sights from the environment [best friend jumping in front of you] triggered the neurons in your eyes to send signals to neurons in the back and side lobes of your brain. These neurons then triggered the subsystems in your brain involved with "fight / flee." Your body jumped back because, again, the fight/flee subsystems sent signals to the rest of your body triggering a physical reaction. This event is then, somehow, imprinted in the various subsystems of your brain involved with memory, which is why, later, when your friends tease you about it, you get angry." Etc. etc. .

In other words, when "you" jump back and scream in response to a scary event, it's not as simple as it seems. What's actually happening is that your brain is responding to itself, in response to external cues from the environment. Or more specifically: subsystems in your brain responded to other subsystems in your brain, which then activated various other parts of your body, which is why you were scared. When you look back at the event, what's happening on a biological level is that executive neural networks in your brain are modifying/recalling the neural networks involved with memory. Somehow. No one knows the details, but what I've provided here is a reasonable sketch.

Why did I write all this? It's to point out that "facts" don't exist in a vacuum. "Facts" are memories stored (somehow) in human brains. When you recall a "fact", you're recalling a "memory"- the result of some physical process in your brain. If you didn't have a brain, you wouldn't be able to recall 'facts.' If everyone lost their brains, then everyone would have also lost their 'facts,' which means there will be no 'facts' anymore.

Etc. etc. '

[EDIT: Ignore the italics. Not intentional. I can't seem to get rid of it].

Give me an example.

Isaac
565

Allow me to explain the difference: an opinion is something you're entitled to, a fact is not. — whollyrolling


No one asked what the definitions of the two classes were. The claim is that one class is empty. — Isaac

And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion.

It really resolves into a "This statement is false" kind of thing.

It's my opinion that it's my opinion. — YuZhonglu

I'm only interested in opinions if they are based on some reason, or evidence, but then that would no longer be an opinion, but an informed statement. What reasons, or evidence would you provide that there are no facts, only opinions, and are those reasons just other opinions?

Where does it stop? Is it your opinion that you exist and have a mind, or is that a fact? Is your post evidence that you have a mind and that you exist?

I'm sure you experience typing a post and submitting it. Anyone can call that event, or state-of-affairs, anything they want, but isn't it a fact that it happened, or that something is happening (like your mental existence)? Using arbitrary symbols to refer to that event is something different and requires a mental existence to even accomplish.

It's narcissistic for me to think that I'm better at philosophy than the rest of you. It's also true — S

Dream on! :kiss:

I didn't come close to assuming or implying that — whollyrolling

You literally did. You said "all" humans think the universe revolves around humans.

My guess (and hope) is that people mean "the universe seems to revolve around them", from their slightly skewed perspective. — Bitter Crank

You'll have to ask wholly if that's what he means. My reading of his post was that he thinks we all think it DOES.

And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion. — Frank Apisa

Well, by my definition of 'fact' it would, yes, but that's not what the OP appears to be talking about. They appear to be defining 'fact' rather idiosyncraticaly as something more like proposition. By that definition, if one class were empty would be irrelevant, but if someone were to claim one class were empty, that would be an opinion, apparently.

The reason I made the comment you're responding to is really to try and break apart issues caused by definition from issues related to metaphysical commitments.

For me (and I think most of us) facts are states of affairs, they are the subject/object of propositions, not the proposition itself, so the idea that facts are opinions by this definition is basically solipsism.

If, on the other hand, the underlying metaphysical position here is one of Pyrrhonic skepticism, hen that's something I have a degree more sympathy for.

What I'm trying to say is that the difference between an opinion and a fact depends on the feeling of certainty attached to the concept, as both opinions and facts are merely the products of neurological activity.

Isaac
566

And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion. — Frank Apisa


Well, by my definition of 'fact' it would, yes, but that's not what the OP appears to be talking about. They appear to be defining 'fact' rather idiosyncraticaly as something more like proposition. By that definition, if one class were empty would be irrelevant, but if someone were to claim one class were empty, that would be an opinion, apparently.

The reason I made the comment you're responding to is really to try and break apart issues caused by definition from issues related to metaphysical commitments.

For me (and I think most of us) facts are states of affairs, they are the subject/object of propositions, not the proposition itself, so the idea that facts are opinions by this definition is basically solipsism.

If, on the other hand, the underlying metaphysical position here is one of Pyrrhonic skepticism, hen that's something I have a degree more sympathy for. — Isaac

I agree with you.

My agreement was the point of what I said.

You don't have to stick to the concept of neurological activity though, which itself stems from experiences you have had. You could say that all we have are experiences, that we can't know for sure what experiences others have, so fundamentally all we talk about is based on our subjective experiential point of view, rather than on the point of view of some omniscient being who could see what everyone experiences and could experience.

I agree, but it's not the direction I'm going. The direction I'm aiming for is the idea that anytime we talk about something, we're actually discussing our own memories. When we claim "X is a fact" we're implying that:

1. I have a memory of X.
2. This memory is accurate.
3. Others should agree with me on this claim.

In other words, we're not actually talking about X itself. Instead, we're discussing our interpretations of X, generated by the physical processes of our brains.

You don't appear to understand metaphor or colloquialism, so let me explain. I didn't mean that all humans are convinced that the universe literally circles around an axis literally at the location of their brain. My intent was to play on a colloquialism, something that I assumed everyone was aware of, "you think (everything, the world, the universe, etc.) revolves around you".

It is a basic primary instinct to act to preserve the self, though it's not unconditional. It is tertiary, and I don't believe instinctive but optional and often very difficult, to act to preserve the species.

My intent was to play on a colloquialism, something that I assumed everyone was aware of, "you think (everything, the world, the universe, etc.) revolves around you". — whollyrolling

I understand the colloquialism. But in the context of this specific thread, it takes on new meaning. Unless, of course, you're just blabbing and not actually contributing to the conversation?

It is a basic primary instinct to act to preserve the self, though it's not unconditional. It is tertiary, and I don't believe instinctive but optional and often very difficult, to act to preserve the species. — whollyrolling

You're clearly not a mother.

Give me an example. — Janus

It wouldn't be the first time I've given examples of this. It's true that Spain borders France, that one plus one equals two, and that Earth orbits the Sun. They're objective truths. They don't depend on me or my judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that, nor on anyone else or their judgement or thoughts or feelings or anything like that. You can interpret the meaning of moral statements, such as that abortion is wrong, in the same way, but I don't accept that there's an objective truthmaker in the sense I just described, and I find it very counterintuitive to end up with the logical consequence that no moral statement is true, so I opt for moral relativism. Moreover, your community defined ethics leads to problems you have been unable to resolve, so that rules that one out. And I'm tired of trying to go over that with you, because your response has been unsatisfactory each time I've tried: either handwaving or completely ignoring it. And I'm also tired of hearing your excuses for this, predictably blaming it on me instead of taking responsibility.