How do facts exist? — John

By being present/occurrent. They're states of affairs that obtain.

What is the difference between factuality and actuality? — John

There is no difference. They're synonyms.

You didn't explain why it's a category error on your view to say that facts exist.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

it is a fact that the cat is on he mat — John

What is the fact then? That the cat is on the mat. The fact is identical with the existent state of affairs.

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

I can not make any sense out of this.

First, saying that facts exist is a category error because "the problems with saying that facts exist or that actualities exist are similar to the problem with saying that truths exist"???

So on your view, category errors occur because something has similar problems to something else? I just can't make any sense at all out of that.

And then truths, facts and actualities all obtain but they do not exist??? What in the world? Obtaining IS existing. And if actuality is existence, then actualities exist.

And there's no problem with saying that truths exist in the first place. Truths do exist.

"'Obtain ontologically' as opposed to merely 'obtain'"--"ontologically" is in the first phrase simply to stress that that's what I'm asking for. An explanation of whatever being you suppose "non-facts" to have.

Why would I say that? — Agustino

Because correspondence theory, on your view, is this: "correspondence theory of truth . . . the relationship between a proposition and states of affairs."

But 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."

But 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

So you started asking me yes or no questions as well? >:O

I responded with a qualified no. Not facts in the same sense as facts existing in the empirical world.

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. (that spiritual truths do not fit under correspondence theory)

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. That's what the spiritual truth says, and of course there are degrees of faith, and therefore degrees of evidence too, and so forth.

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

But there are a lot of subjective facts in general (keeping in mind that subjective simply refers to mentality). 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. That makes it no less a fact. It's a state of affairs that you desire a surf green Stratocaster. "Fact" in no way only refers to objective (non-mental/person-independent) states of affairs. It refers to ALL states of affairs, including mental, spiritual etc.--whatever there is.

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

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.

If it's vague, isn't the state of affairs--the fact--that it's vague?

If it's vague, isn't the state of affairs--the fact--that it's vague? — 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)

in the way we generally conceive of facts in the empirical realm (ie crisp, precise, and uninfluenced by subjectivity) — Agustino

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.

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

Sure, I can agree with that!

That's a contradiction. The spiritual reality is defined by how it is not vague at all.

"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.

"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

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.

Indeed-- they are not crisp enough in their thoughts. The doubter doesn't stick to the particular thoughts, feelings and actions they are meant to under faith. In the face of possibility (e.g. God might of might not be) the become unsettled. They start thinking: "Well maybe my faith isn't right, perhaps my way of life needs to be something else," becoming lost in a sea of vagueness.

Contrast with the Knight of Faith who, in the face of possibility (e.g. God might or might not be), affirms their way of life in no uncertain terms. Despite, the possibility of their way of life being wrong (e.g. God might not be), they affirm their faith. Indeed, the way of life is thought to be necessary, despite the truth of possibility otherwise. Crispness is the point. Not even a necessary truth of possibility can challenge the necessity which is the crispness of faith.

You are not entirely sure what you mean by "God exists" because it doesn't, in terms of existence, mean anything at all. It's a confusion created by mistaking an affirmation of faith or reason for faith ( "God exists" ) for empirical commentary. You use "God exists" to defend and understand a way of life you practice-- the point is to be crisp in that way.

Encyclopedias are (purportedly) full of facts. Are they full of states of affairs?

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

I don't think this is right at all. Is truth not "defined in relationship with actuality"? If factuality and actuality are the same thing, as Terrapin says, how could facts be defined in relation to actuality. A fact would then be an actuality, and it seems ridiculous so say that a thing is defined in relation to itself..

There are at least two senses of 'fact'; I have already acknowledged this. In one sense 'a fact' is synonymous with 'true'. "It is a fact that I went to the shops this morning". "It is true that I went to the shops this morning". These sentences are synonymous, which makes 'true' synonymous with 'a fact'. Really the common usages of 'true', 'fact' and 'actuality' are not very consistent. Which means the whole argument devolves to a terminological issue.

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. Does he mean that truths "obtain ontologically" and that falsities merely obtain, just as he seems to think in the case of factuality and non-factuality. I want to know, and he doesn't seem to be able to tell me, what the difference is between obtaining and obtaining ontologically. Personally, I think all this is really just playing with words, "pouring from the empty into the Void", as Gurdjieff would say.

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

That's the whole point of truth-value (truth, falsehood, and any other modalities we'd allow) being a property of propositions, and on my view, being a judgment of how a proposition relates to facts (on correspondence theory). Truth is a judgment that the proposition matches facts. Falsehood is a judgment that a proposition doesn't match facts. Both clearly exist. Both are clearly modes of the same thing.

Where one gets into trouble ontologically is when one says that truth and fact are, or can be, synonymous. Again, this is the whole impetus in analytic philosophy for analyzing "truth" so that it's different than "fact."

I wouldn't say that there is such a thing a "non-factuality." That's rather what you claimed.

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

In fact I already answered this. I added "ontologically" simply to emphasize that that was what was asking you about. It was simply in anticipation of receiving an answer that wasn't addressing what I was asking for, since I'm so used to that in the context of message board discussions.

If you're an agnostic please get out. Only theists and atheists should be in this room. — Agustino

What if you're an agnostic-theist?

Does Mister Rogers qualify as a philosopher?
If so then he's my opposite; I'm an atheist. But the way he lived was enough to make me very briefly want to be a theist.