• protist
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 months ago

    Truth in any context will always rely on facts

    Why?

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        9 months ago

        Speak for yourself, I’m having this conversation from a papasan chair I found on the side of the road

      • protist
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”

      • asdfasdfasdf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I think the point is this is paradoxical. Everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord, then how can we prove “everything must be proven by facts and we cannot trust any general, abstract statement of its own accord”? What if that’s a wrong assumption?

        Maybe the truth is we don’t always need to rely on observable facts, but we don’t know that because we’re making the aforementioned assumption without having any proof that it’s correct.

        • auzas_1337@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          axioms have entered the chat

          The deeper you go in the why territory, the more abstract and tangental your axioms get.

          So yeah. All facts and truths ultimately rest on foundations that are either kinda unobservable or unproven. Doesn’t make them less practical or true (by practical definitions) though.

    • Dr_Satan@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      To get a fact out of an observation requires interpretation and a desire-to-interpret. It’s observation translated into dreamstuff.