[Wittrs] [quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 23:46:27 -0000

--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Brampton <martin.lists@...> 

> The kind of problems I have with the first few sentences are that I 
> don't know what is being referred to by "the world" as it seems to be 
> used in a philosophical way.  

He wants us to understand "the world" as the totality of facts.

> Or, I am baffled by what a fact would be 
> if it is not simply a true statement.  

I think he would say that it a fact that makes a statement true (or 
false)--it's not itself the true statement.

> But true statements don't exist 
> in any straightforward way.
> I'm not attempting to push W into any particular view, it's just that an 
> assumption of idealism would make the introductory statements a lot 
> easier to swallow.  

I don't see that, actually.

> And we know of W's fascination with solipsism, which 
> most interpreters take to mean (for W) much the same as idealism.
> An ordinary person would take facts to be true statements (that's what 
> the dictionaries say) 

Again, I don't think the true statements ARE the facts, they are what, to 
follow W's usage, is mirrored by true statements.

> but if you want to interpret W in a realist way, 
> then aren't you supposing that facts are something different?  If so, 
> what are they?

They are what make true statements true--in W's view, ultimately configurations 
of simple objects.


Other related posts: