jwfacts or jwinterpretations? (page 9)

slimboyfat

Paul, I would describe "fact that there are no facts" as knowingly ironic rather than facetious, but thanks for noticing and responding so kindly. Life is full of irony and contradiction so why not embrace it? I sometimes think to myself. I don't think the excerpt you quote successfully refutes perspectivism, because as I understand it it does not claim that different perspectives negate one another, but rather that many different perspectives are legitimate, and crucially that there is no way to stand outside of our subjectivity in order to judge any given perspective as closer to reality than any other. My perspective is that I admire your website a great deal and think it does a lot of good. But I also struggle with the idea of thinking of alternative perspectives as wrong. Thank you again for your good natured response.

joe that is flattering, but I don't write high quality essays, or essays at all. Have you confused me with Cedars?

bohm

SBF: I think a basic issue is that you are writing a lot and saying very little. Take this quote:

and crucially that there is no way to stand outside of our subjectivity in order to judge any given perspective as closer to reality than any other.

What exactly does that mean? For instance, what does it mean to "stand outside of our subjectivity"? Does it merely mean our thinking is determined by our biological makeup and if we were unable to comprehend the world reliably becuse of some illness (or because an angel was toying with our brain) we might arrive at different conclusions, or does it mean something else? How do you define an agent which stand outside its subjectivity?

slimboyfat

Well God would be the ultimate, but if he exists he's not exactly helping us out is he?

No it means we are all looking from different points of view. The classic example, often used, is that of a mountain. Consider how different the same mountain can look from different perspectives, all around, and from different heights of elevation. Yet it's the same mountain, and no single view of the mountain can sensibly be called any truer than any other.

The thing in itself does not contain an essence which we can discover, map quantify and preserve. There are merely different ways of talking about it that are more or less useful in different situations. We cannot escape our subjectivity in the sense that we cannot step outside of ourselves and the language we use in order to decide if our view and how we describe it is any closer to reality than any other perspective. This is because, to use perhaps the most infamous phrase in all postmodern theory, "there is nothing outside of the text".

TD

I'm confused. (Not hard to do)

The excerpt below appeared in the November 1, 1922 issue of The Watch Tower.

Is that assertion a fact or an interpretation?

AndDontCallMeShirley

SBF:

it means we are all looking from different points of view. The classic example, often used, is that of a mountain

TD:

The excerpt below appeared in the November 1, 1922 issue of The Watch Tower.

Is that assertion a fact or an interpretation?

--

I guess the answer would be, according to Slim, it depends on which side of the mountain you're looking at.

bohm

Sbf: We cannot escape our subjectivity in the sense that we cannot step outside of ourselves and the language we use in order to decide if our view and how we describe it is any closer to reality than any other perspective

i think i have a counterexample. Bob and alice have a coin. Bobs view on the coin is that its fair, alices view is that its loaded and it will come up heads every time its flipped.

They flip the coin ten times and it comes up heads 3 times and tails 7 times.

Upon this, alice deside bobs view is closer to the truth.

How do you analyse the situation to arrive at your conclusion (without making alice behave in an obviously irrational way).

jwfacts or jwinterpretations?

Share this