This is another common line of thinking that places truth in the hands of statements that are not truth apt, as they are written. 'Is X good or bad' depends upon the relationship between X and a personal 'moral' belief about X. It says nothing of truth, as it is written. It is much better put...

Do you believe that X is good or bad?

Now it's truth apt.

While spiritual charlatans may exist, that does not mean that spirituality does not exist. Unexplained phenomenon does exist and does happen. That you always resist these concepts is a curiosity, (which is your own business) but this attitude comes off as looking like you have a disdain towards anything you don't understand or don't chose to believe.

Then, because you know a little about my spiritual beliefs, you read meanings into my words that are not there.

When someone tells me that this or that "is a fact." Guess what? I consider it to be an opinion because just calling something a fact does not mean that it is a fact.

If I agree that a thing is a fact, it is not because someone else tells me it is and it is not because I know the state of affairs. It is ALWAYS an agreement.

If someone says "The sky is blue." I will agree with them if the sky is blue.

If someone says "The sky is always blue." I will not agree with them because I have seen pink and green and yellow skies.

People who think they know the true nature of reality are only fooling themselves.

The remarks regarding my interpretation are completely unfounded, unsubstantiated, and unjustifiable. The facts in evidence clearly show otherwise.

What would it take for the above allegations to be true?

It would require the listener to misunderstand the speaker, and it would also require the listener to mistakenly attribute their own presuppositions to the speakers expressions. That has not happened. The listener, in this case, is me. I understand that the speaker's claims follow below. I understand that they constitutes self-contradictory claims. I understand that anyone who has the slightest amount of reasoning skills can see this for themself. The set of claims is incoherent. They are unintelligible. They cannot be made sense of because they contradict one another.



Here is what was written.

--

























So which is it?






--






Alright, Jb. Let's go with this line of thinking, it may serve us well and help matters out here. To posit that humans interpret what the state of affairs are, is to necessarily presuppose that there are states of affairs to be interpreted. If there are states of affairs to be interpreted, then we do not determine what the states of affairs are.

As long as we are clear on this matter, I have no problem with "intepretation" veins of thought.



We have a tool that we use to make sense of things, to make sense of the world around us and ourselves. That tool is language. I have not, nor would I, argue against the notion that we decided to call states of affairs "fact". I've already agreed to this point. My question to you is what does that tell us other than we invent names for things?

What is "the true nature of reality"? If the above is true, then we cannot know. If we cannot know, then the phrase is utterly meaningless. Any attribution of meaning to it is self-contradictory. If that is the case, and it is, then what is the point in making the claim to begin with, especially given the fact that no one else has made a claim about "the true nature of reality"(whatever that is supposed to mean).

We call that a strawman argument. It is to posit something that was never claimed to begin with, and then argue against it as if it has something to do with what has been.

Since you are not understanding what I write, I have attempted to reword it several different ways. But still you don't understand what I mean.

We cannot know what the true nature of reality is. Hence we cannot know what the state of affairs are, hence we cannot know what is "fact."

Therefore facts are agreements.

That depends on what you mean by "determine."

I said that we interpret what the state of affairs are, then we label it "fact."

If "determine" means "decide" then yes, we decide.
If "determine" means "create or influence" that is a different subject.

It tells us that since we cannot know what the true nature of reality is, and we cannot know what the true state of affairs are, that "facts" basically boil down to being agreements.

-->check

.----> check

------->wrong apparently.



Wrong.

If they contradict one another, it is only in your own interpretation of them, particularly the word "fact."

But I am tired of going in circles with you, so I'm going to give it up.

The cup is on the table.

I agree.

I agree because I can see it, touch it, feel it.

I agree because others can do the same. We all agree.

Fact.

Invalid thinking.

My stating that there are spiritual charletans in the world is my stating a fact. It does not follow from my stating that fact that I "have a disdain towards anything that I don't understand or don't chose to believe."



This conversation is not about you.



I've read nothing "spiritual" into your words, and I've assumed nothing about your belief. I'm addressing the claims you've put forth and the reasoning you've offered as a basis for justification for the assent to those claims. I merely pointed out that it is the on the edge of language subtleties that are often being exploited by spiritual charletans. That is a true claim, because it corresponds to fact/reality.



A little skepticism is good.



Well, of course. If you agree, then you agree. The question is - when you do agree, if it is not because someone else tells you, and it is not because you know what the state of affairs are, then what causes the agreement?

Semantic gibberish...



If we cannot know what "the true nature of reality is" then we cannot posit it as a basis for comparison. The phrase is useless. Throw it out. It is a mental construct that says nothing at all.

It is never a good sign when someone blames the incoherence inherent within their own claims upon someone else.

More semantic self-defeating nonsense. This is to say we cannot know X, and because we cannot know X, we cannot know Y either. The problem is that X is necessarily unknown; by definition we cannot know it. If we cannot know X, then X is utterly useless as a comparitive basis. It cannot even be posited without contradicting itself. We cannot use the unknown realm to deny what is known, becuase we cannot know anything at all about the unknown realm. That is invalid thinking.

We need not know everything about reality in order to know some things about reality. We need not know everything about any given state of affairs in order to know that that state of affairs is not subject to out thought/belief about it. I need not know everything about that state of affairs in order to know that some claims correspond to it. I need not know about the molecular events that are occurring regarding my cup and the table to know that my cup is on the table.

I did not make the claim that you have disdain towards anything. I said these statements come off looking like you have a disdain towards these things. This is my impression and interpretation and how I evaluate your statement.

We were not talking about "spiritual charlatans." Yet in referencing my statements, you brought up that term yourself as if to imply that my statements were 'on the edge of language' and subtleties that are exploited by the spiritual charlatans of the world selling their brand of 'reality' to those who embrace and cherish the notion of the supernatural.

I'm not naive enough that I can't interpret THAT ATTITUDE.

I speak very clearly and very simply. Most people understand me perfectly.

Its never a good sign when someone blames his lack of comprehension on someone else.

This is not about you.

This is not about you.

The claims are on the edge of language. That edge is the limit of language. Language has it's limits. It becomes especially difficult when people confuse a term with what the term represents, describes, and/or is the placemark in thought for. That is often the case with fact and "fact" with reality and "reality". This language limit is often exploited and/or completely misunderstood by spiritual charletans attempting to make a buck off of another's supernatural belief.

My interpretation is correct. The claims contradict one another. They make no sense. I'm asking you to justify your claims.

1. What is a fact.
2. What is "the true nature of reality"?
3. What is the difference between the term "fact" and a fact?

If I needed to put quotations around the word "fact" in order for you to tell the difference between the word "fact" and a fact maybe we should start over.

Your claim is that a fact is a state of affairs.
I agree.
Your claim is that the term "fact" is a word we made up by humans to represent a state of affairs.
I agree.

The difference is that a fact is a state of affairs and the term "fact" is a made up word of the English language.

The "true nature of reality" are words that represent the true nature of reality.

The true nature of reality is all of existence, AND HOW IT WORKS, which is mostly unknown.