[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@...>
wrote:
>
>
> 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.
W
Other related posts:
