Fact or fiction??

Nietzsche:: "There are no facts, only interpretations."
any thought on this??

Define fact.

When you are as confident as I am interpretations are fact . lol
I have really been thinking about this a lot because logical fallacy is hard to avoid in the heat of a debate threatening my idea of truth I might resort to the ad hominim of pointing out that his lack of spiritual understanding may have lead to a horse hugging mental break down
My Lord loves humility yet a WISE poet once noticed there are several ways you can observe a poetic fact such as a sunrise though the observer is actually moving

In a resent debate someone informed me all my facts have been debunked which lead me to a melt down . Ivent by writting a poem called "Debunked Myths" C.S Lewis said myths are often more constant than facts

Nietzsche said another thing like this:
" The truth needs to be criticized instead of worshiped"

Seems we already went through this issue.

Facts are relative to the position and subjective experience of the person espousing them.

The train Einstein is walking through causes him to refer to a stationary passenger car through which he moves. I on the side of the tracks see a train moving by and Einstein moving slightly faster through it.

Subjectively, I may see a sunrise as a glorious and hopeful event, a person more literal may see it as colorful, a depressed person may see it as proof he is alone in the world. The subjective experience of each person causes the fact of the sunrise to carry different substantive import.

Believe me we are going somewhere else this time.
the relation of facts and truth is like the relation of walnuts and roundness: any walnut is rounded but not anything rounded is a walnut.
The objectivity of the facts which are the base of relativity theory is another fact by itself, and as a fact it is already relative therefor can not exempt itself.
for you, Mr Einstein is moving faster than train if going in the same direction as train or slower if going opposite. for a train going opposite of the first train all the facts are different. But all together they all can be determined and calculated, because through the measurements we can go beyond the personal perspectives.

For the second part Larry our reflect towards the same fact is always personal (survival of the fittest) and general( species, heritage)in the same time this is the paradox that they teach in biology.

Well I believe a truth is a proved fact like that water is H2O that is undeniable truth, but a fact differs thro time
I believe yesterday's myth is today's fact is tomorrow's old method so in my opinion facts are related to time but Truths stays the same forever.

Max, I agree

Nietzsche says that the truth needs to be criticized instead of worship
I think what he means by truth is what is happening, not what is rightful to happen .
Nietzsche do not believe in the model of perfection in our soul the way Rumi dose
He thinks that human consciousness is building that paragon by progression.
But he dose not believe there is a direction in that progression. If not what is a progression without a direction?? And if there is a direction it means, as Rumi believe, the direction is already exist in us; therefor we going toward that direction.
Like Carl Marks, Nietzsche, flip the coin of Hegel's dialectical method, and like Hegel he takes away its versatility.

But the concept of water as H2O is only significant to carbon-based beings. Were we in a different world, the "water" necessary to life may well be H2SO4, even though H2O would remain a valid compound.

Re-facts as measurable, all measurement systems begin with an arbitrary agreement as to a reference point. For example, a foot is based on the measurement of a dead king's foot. A meter is defined as the length of a rod in the Bureau of Weights & Measurements. A second, well, does anyone know where that gem came from? Might surprise you.

Even with an agreed standard of measurement, there may be disagreement on the application: where is the starting point? When I go to the grocery & back I tell my wife the trip took 15 minutes. She argues that it took a half hour. I timed from the moment I left the driveway to the moment I returned. She measures from the time she asked me to go to the time I handed her the groceries.

Even more importantly, most things of significance cannot be measured. How would you measure emotional involvement or the degree of repugnance of a horrible act?

I think the first post you were right Lrry but in this one in my opinion, you really confused yourself with your facts.
First the flaw is not in the fact of the length of yours or your beloved wife's measurements; the flaw is in the accuracy of you acts of measurements.
Even though the measurements are all not definite but the length of here and there even considering the fluctuations are definite.
The problem with this logic is it can not stand the presence of paradox: that the definite and relative , they both are always applied equally. but as the Rumi's Elephant case, every one just see one side of the story.

"How would you measure emotional involvement or the degree of repugnance of a horrible act?"

we measure them by punishment. we know for example the amount of punishment are definitely arguable. but the needs for punishment is definite also.
the case of measurement is not totally coinciding with the fact. some facts are not measurable at all.

No, you mistake the assement of punishment, which is arbitrary, with a true fact. In the sixties in Texas a drug dealer selling marijuana was subject to the death penalty. Today, the fact of need for punishment is debatable. Same sex marriages are no longer punishable in most states & are sanctioned in others.

The error of seeking logic to be co-terminus with paradox is that these are mutually exclusive except in the genius of a human mind. The facts are not what are found in some objective real world, but only in our poor perception.

I said : "punishment are definitely arguable"
You say: " Today, the fact of need for punishment is debatable "
you say I am mistaking while you are agreeing with me.

you : "Same sex marriages..."
but I talk about punishment in respond to your "repugnance of a horrible act?" which they are punishable by any measurements more and less.

about the logic and paradox I would agree if you have said inclusive, instead. I go even farther and say they both are the same thing; they live separately only allegorically in the "genius of a human mind."
I know when people talk about the logic, what they're referring to is the conventional logic; the main bulk of society are totally clueless about the Hegel's paradoxical logic. There lays the cause of all these misconceptions.

But here you run into the same mistake as Marx by attempting to fit the universe into human terms. Hegel developed the Kantian concept of antinomies as an idealistic dialectic in which attaining the True and the Real were the necessary driving forces behind evolutionary processes.

Hegel reacted against Cartesian logic by positing that the act of thinking creates the being rather than merely giving proof of it. Nietzsche substantially escalated the Hegelian approach by denying the ability of the being to have existence independent of its becoming.

The only fundamental change Marx & Engels made was to rewrite the Hegelian master-slave dialectic in purely materialistic terms, eschewing Hegel's idealism. Truth and Reality were created by the process rather than the process being driven by them.

However, all these approaches are blindly inclusive of self-importance in that the process of the dialectic is primarily significant in human terms rather than universal processes.
The universe will go on its way whether we accept it or not. Entropy will continue to run down the celestial clock regardless of the existence of intellect or knowledge of facts.

The dissociation of these thinkers from reality that was recognized and expounded by Wittgenstein is profound. Discussion of the dialectic in idealistic or material reference points is engaging in language games of no real purpose.

Following all these methods leads only to Nihilism in direct refutation of Marx, Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant and Descartes. As Camus points out, in our condition we are ultimately limited by our humanness. With this human situation in which we find ourselves the best we can do is to become fully human. Our only step left is to accept the absurdity of life and continue on in the face of it like Sisyphus with his rock. We must laugh as we start down the hill after our transcendent boulder.

"There are no facts, only interpretations."

I think facts are interpretations that hasn't been proven false.

so it's a fact that there are facts, unless all of the facts are proven to be not facts.

I'll accept that as a working hypothesis.

As much as I hate to quote from memory I once heard a priest utter as a matter of fact that the only true constant is change. I once interpreted Giordano Bruno's summary of philosophy in rhyme and reason as
To find the synthesis in which opposites and contradictions meet and merge
Would put a persistent philosopher on the verge
Of rising to the highest knowledge of universal unity
Which is the intellectual equivalent of the love of God's entity

See prayer of saint FranciLord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hatred, let me sow love. Where there is injury, pardon. Where there is doubt, faith. Where there is despair, hope. Where there is darkness, light. Where there is sadness, joy. O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled, as to console; to be understood, as to understand; to be loved, as to love. For it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned, and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life. Amen.

I always love your approaches Michael

O come on Lerry was it necessary to to open so many cans of worms all intellectually stimulating though, but noting in respond to what I said except the Hegel part.
Your knowledge is very insightful even though disagreeable

Marx said that the dialectic method of Hegel was standing on his head and he brought it back on its feet. What him and Hegel and in different scales, Greeks and then Kierkegaard or Camus .... Did not know and could not understand then is that there is no head an feet to this creature , there is only interpretations (just partially, the way Nietzsche means).
The world is sphere and each side of the coin we flip, there would be the same scale of coherent and uniformity that completely authenticate and attest to all its elements.
The consciousness is like the image of yin and yang: either side contain an opposite sets of tails and heads. Any logical philosophical and logical approach is more and less "primarily significant in human terms" we already know that any approach of thinking is abstractive and only inclusive to human kind. Haha maybe bible is right saying that God created us from his image.

On the contrary it is not the dialectic that is a "lingual game" it was the Greek sophism that their treatment of supposition was like that, also the modern new positivism, which claims the philosophy is just a artistic play with the vocabularies. They turn the major idea of "empirical evidence" to the abstractive evidence.

The Camus version of existentialism only shed light on a part of the equation and can't see some of the essentials, one the essence itself.
He also only touches a fraction of the Rumi's elephant. He limits the Godlike human, the ubermensch, to the worm living in the apple flesh. And your "Sisyphus with his rock" example is the wideness to that that you do not believe in human ability to comprehend the universe beyond the flesh of an apple.

History has proven that religion causes division and denominations . There is (IMO) many times a common denominator in the common era and the older traditional year of our Lord . RUMI writes love poems to God while Nietzsche proclaims he is dead to the common senses. That is only my interpretation and maybe all I am capable of expressing as a matter of fact . Whether religion is the cause or effect of division could also be debatable . Our forefathers and mothers have eaten from at least a metaphorical tree of knowlege of good and evil

Nietzsche said "The truth needs to be criticized instead of worshiped"
well maybe he meant that if we worshiped the truth is is ultimate but we are living in a world of possibilities, everything can be proved wrong, a simple change in anything around us can prove our most absolute truth wrong.

Well my two cents worth on this...if I'm asked the colour of the sky I'd most likely say blue...the grass is green right? These will be the answers a psychiatrist would be looking for I guess but these answers are obviously not strickly truths as we know... neither are they lies/interpretations ...nor facts...we all answer questions with the most direct answer our brain produces at any certain time when put on the spot and not asked to elaborate so...anyway...I leave you with this thought and another....

Nietzche has many quotes...a lot of them he will contradict what he has said in a previous one so I guess his facts/interpretations also changed somewhat as he lived and learned.

"The truth needs to be criticized instead of worshiped"

The truth is supposed to be singular. True scientists, natural worshippers of truth, are more acutely aware than ever that what we discover as a truth is usually only provisional. So many people turn from the material to the spiritual for this reason, in search of something absolute, something beyond illusions.

I love the search within us, but I revel in non-truths all the time. I'm not sure it matters, really.

Nietzsche emphasis only in one expect of the truth the relativity. He totally disregards its absoluteness. These two are inseparable .
Like according to Nietzsche we can conclude: one can not be convicted of any crime, because the fact of the crime, the fact of who committed that crime and the fact of criminal justice are all only interpretations.
Indeed they could be all interpretations in the definite mind of those who turn the relativity also to another definite definition. But in the real world as Don Juan mentions: things only happen in their paradoxical tendencies.

I mean both sides are correct within their contractions. in the dialectical logic versos simple one we do not think either this or that. this and that, they both coexist in a paradoxical tendencies.

Nah right and wrong are obvious, we humans all have a common sense that killing for no reason is wrong so here I think it isn't about interpretations anymore.

unlike some habits, I mean like Adrenaline addicted people, some people think they are crazy and other people think they are courage here interpretations take place. like death sentence for killers, some say they should be imprisoned for the rest of their lives and others say they don't deserve to live those are interpretations but there are some ultimate things in our life; like time, right and wrong is ultimate cause mostly they are common in all people.

Truth will always revert to the Manchhausen Trilemma, stressing the purported impossibility to prove any truth even in the fields of logic and mathematics. It is the name of an argument in the theory of knowledge.

If we ask of any knowledge: "How do I know that it's true?", we may provide proof; yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Manchhausen Trilemma is that we have only three options when providing proof in this situation:

The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other (i.e. we repeat ourselves at some point)

The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum (i.e. we just keep giving proofs, presumably forever)

The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts (i.e. we reach some bedrock assumption or certainty)

^ Note : Copy/pasted. To save time.

All truth can be argued to be an assumption given enough reasoning. The truth then becomes an agreement mutual, among the masses. Killing a murderer is still a killing. Be it through a trial midst black coats and a statue blind folded representing justice. Or personal revenge, avenging an individuals death.

If we are to declare all certain truth at present as deductive and definitive assumptions. Then the society would cease to function. No verdict for any circumstances can be drawn.

A good example of truth - The universal truth, the Sun rises from the East and sets in the West. This truth is limited to a human beings psychological perception of an event, to insert an ease of comprehension. The face of the Earth due to its rotational movement moves in front of the Sun. This does not mean the Sun rises. But our visual perception comprehends the Sun as rising. Similarly, the Sun setting is the face of the Earth turning away from the Sun. Yet we describe it as setting. And the Sun rising from the East and setting in the West, is a certain truth only at a given instance. Should the direction of the rotation of the Earth reverse, the Sun would rise from the West and set in the East. And the same, should the axis of the rotation of the Earth should tilt, the Sun could rise from the North or South, depending on direction of the rotation.

For the past few centuries, we have been studying the Earth revolving around the Sun in a number of 365 days. A new theory suggests that the Earth cannot possibly move/revolve around the Sun, as all objects in the space are continuously moving. Thus Earth constituting a mass, would need energy for acceleration, to pass ahead of the Sun. But there isn't any medium of acceleration. Thus the Earth follows the Sun, but does not revolve about it. So, what is being taught in school and colleges, is potentially false.

Truth can be challenged should one find such a necessity. But one cannot spend his life criticizing the circumstances of an event all the time. Thus, it is wise to doubt the truth, but only that which occurs at particular instances, along the way.

One is his own judge. Truth is subjective. Yet, truth can be definite. A murder captured on a camera(video recording), cannot be proven false, unless some lawyer is a hypnotist by his method of speech. Deriving the arguments and the incident to be a circumstantial and unfortunate accident. There are at present no theories that define the parameters and limits to the human intellect and stupidity. We are creatures of habit and follow a fashion. Should an individual carry out an activity people find inappropriate, he will be criticized. But as soon as they find 10-20-50-100 people carrying out the same activity in the same fashion, they will ease up and do the same, deeming it as being modern and going with the flow.

And as far as facts go. They are interpretations, with results verified over number of repetitive experimentation. A fact is a confirmed end result of any data. Men have testosterone as the dominating hormone. And women have estrogen as the dominating hormone. This is a fact, confirmed by a cycle of experiments tested out by studying male and female specimens from different races. And it is a general assumption for all the males and female. It is the most plausible output. And true for almost all cases. Exceptions are very rare and have their reasons/causes which have to be studied.

Will have to come back to write more.

This is not to respond to any of above and donkey is referred to the philosophers ::

Donkeys or jackasses They all are philosophers, sort of speak even though anyone who is stupid or stubborn we call him/her donkey. Jackasses mostly are use for transportation of goods. They are hefty workers, they could carry lodes twice or more of their body. They are smart though because they know the straight line( more I could say for lots of folks I see in day to day life). To get to where they're suppose to go, they never disdain the straight line, in which is the shortest distance between two points.
But in the upward distances, donkeys movement turns to zigzag. Suddenly something in there instinctive psyche tells them to do so. Because going straight sloping upward, with a heavy lode, is the very definition of stupidity. Even donkeys know that. Donkeys know the straight line in uphill claiming, is not really straight; going zigzag however is!! Donkeys understand the simple logic of straight lines as much as the sophisticated logic of dialectic, more than I could say for some of these philosopher or even dialecticians.

There are two sorts of logic; one is conventional logic that only deals with "this, and that," classifications and arrangements and taxonomies: if you are black you are not white; if you are alive therefore you are not dead. If you are mammal you are not bird. This logic is the logic of definite.
The other logic is the logic of relativity; it is an antitheses of the other logic yet equally correct and useful. In this logic all those margins and classification tumbles:
Life also is death, because the first breath we take is the first step towards demise. When we die we turn to another shapes of living like vegetation and animals. We have "bat" witch is bird but is also a mammal.
This logic is the logic of contrasts and contingency and connections instead of division. This logic is way more complicated than the conventional one. It is the logic of fluidity and changeability.
Logics are abstract by nature, we need to classify the object in order to understand them. A tree is a tree and a book in a book; the very formation of concept is the firs step of these classifications.
The logic of dialectic however teaches us to not to take this classification too seriously. It emphasizes on the intimacy of this separated objects.Man has the feminine gins and woman has masculine ones. So even when we are masculine we also in the same time are feminine. Man and woman without each other are absolutely meaningless, so as day and night, joy and pain, hell and heaven, and most importantly, they would not perpetuate without one another. They all are the opposite paddles of a canoe; they must apply equally otherwise we are going no where.

But the fellow philosophers who believe in dialectic take it too far and draw the lines and borders of their philosophy too straight, and turn its axioms of fluency, and swiftness to another version of rigidity and stiffness. The general tendency of thinkers such as Nietzsche, even the Marx himself, is to turn relativity to another machine shop of exact making. ((maybe this is the condition of being human))
They turn the relativity to another certainty witch defies its very reason of existence.

Man has the feminine gins and woman has masculine ones. So even when we are masculine we also in the same time are feminine. Man and woman without each other are absolutely meaningless, so as day and night, joy and pain, hell and heaven, and most importantly, they would not perpetuate without one another.

^ Men and women, both have testosterone and estrogen. That is why I've mentioned "Dominating hormone". I am very well aware of the concept of extremities being co-dependent. They are mutual and inhibit a neutral zone.

There are multiple types of logic. One can view an event as it is, there by accepting it as the only truth. Else, one can approach via different types of reasoning. And logic merely formalizes valid method of reasoning. In all its varieties it formalizes the laws of thoughts. It formulates normative theories, which prescribe how people ought to think. Likewise cognitive psychology is also concerned with thinking, but focuses mostly on descriptive theories.

You cannot possibly contradict all truth. One born from the womb of his mother, cannot contradict his birth now, can he? ..Doubting, being skeptical of the validity and authenticity of any given premise is appropriate. It helps to better apply one's intellect. But no matter what one's conclusion, it will always be an interpretation. The most plausible assumption.

The absurdity of an event cannot be measured in terms of common sense or logic. Neither can one argue against it, since the only method of processing any activity is through reasoning. Synthesizing any data requires multiple variables and constant, to enable it for compilation. There is no other way of post evaluating any instance. Any argument beyond this is futile. One cannot procrastinate on leading a life, even if logic dictates joy and sorrow as being mutually dependent. You cannot frown in joy constantly worrying, being distracted by the oncoming, inevitable sorrow.

Too much doubting simply doesn't provide a better organization of data. Rather it tends to make things more absurd. One could live a life, else spend the rest of his/her life trying to equate how a human being made of up trillions of atoms contains conscience and life. But a table at the same time, made up of trillions of atoms, does not walk or talk or try to solve equations of quantum mechanics. If any event isnt validated by human senses and relative reasoning, does not make it non existent. Our interpretation, as an individual or as a collective society is limited to only what we can perceive. Almost everyone is open minded about the validity of any event. But individuals are confined to functioning in their regular life. When you have to work 10-12 hours to provide for your family. Absurd truth does not interfere.

Yes, I will agree on drawling lines too straight. Defining limits hinders abstract growth. Logic confines. But it is the most basic approach, and from there on one can bifurcate.

Interpretation of absurdity, is still an opinion. An individual's interpretation. This way, every post on here no matter how fair, could be put to trial. Any man, no matter how righteous could be put to trial. And any culprit be stood for innocence. A victim processed as the offender and vice verse. There is nothing so righteous that one cannot doubt its authenticity. In finality everything will break down to chaos. An entity could have endless facades unknown or overlooked by human intellect. It would be wrong to postpone conclusions, as a new facade would spring forth to eliminate the most recent conclusion. Relativity is dependent on how deep one wants to relate to. Every thing one can see or not see, is made up of atoms vibrating. Thus, everything is relative, while displaying different properties. And the reason for the same particles displaying different properties is so far unknown. Yet we are functioning as a society and not being paranoid.

In conclusion, something is true because its true. Something is false, because its false. The statement will circle back to its self. Reductio ad absurdum .

Rumi::
" You are not a drop
in the ocean,
you are an ocean
in a drop"

This is how flexible Rumi is flouting with dialectical notion of objects. He draws the lines whit no lines
In his logic, "this and that" are so limited and that puts him in a illimitable position: A drop could be as capacious as an ocean and an ocean as insignificant as a drop.

A. Shamloo::
the ocean envies
the sip
you've drunk from the well"
The simplicity of this verse is exactly opposite to its meaning.
In this verse the poet says, you do not need to be as immense, as obvious and as exposed as an oceans, you could be wherever you are as insignificant as you seem to be: even a sip in the dark and forgotten well, unexposed, BUT still holding the essence of the water more than the oceans. You could be the drop that all the waters in the whole world, would envy your smoothness, your freshness, your sweet taste. You could be charitable where no body could see you, proud with no ostentation; so honest that the ocean would pail in compare. You could forgive a man who tortured you all your life and made your life a living hell, but still let him go on the pinnacle of his vulnerability when you have the ability of hurting him in darkness beyond the attention of others .
The logic in this verse says God is within you, not in the religions; vastness, diameter and size are distractions; shining is a commotion; the measurement of light is darkness. And this by itself is pure logic, the logic of another kind.