Is the world really just a collection of facts

Is the world really just a collection of facts

close, it's farts. german humor doesn't translate.

Doesn't he mean that we can only understand the world in language through facts?

why did i laugh, why am i so immature

even W wasn't that much of a simpleton. 'The world is all that is the case' was more of an anti-metaphysical statement against a Kantian world of Phenomena and Noumena

No, you completely misunderstand Wittgenstein.
Facts are simply what we are limited to speak of

How does that statement contradict the Kantian noumena?

the inaccessible world of noumena doesn't exist not even in imagination

But surely noumena is exactly what Wittgenstein implied by "That which can not be spoken of"

wouldn't Wittgenstein's stance more be "we can't know if it exists so it's irrelevant"?

Irrelevant is too dismissive, its more its totally outside the domains of (analytic) philosophy to investigate

that was was I meant more or less
Ks noumena are so overrated but in truth they were just a pathetic attempt of saving 'God' from rationality and final annihilation
Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Land mocked Kant for that endlessly

>Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Land mocked Kant for that endlessly

Wittgenstein completely misunderstood his own thoughts, just head straight to post Philosophical Investigations

lol that’s hilarious, they’re coming back already. noosphere is going to render the whole world transcendental. goodbye material existence :)

So basically your entire point was null. Fuck off meme pseud

Well I guess that depends on what you mean by saying "the world in language"

For Wittgenstein a fact is a possible state of affairs which is the case. The world is supposed to be "my world", because of how he sees propositions working through logic.

So when he says the world, take it as the world from the view of a solopsist. A fact is what is the case in that world. I wont get into the nitty-gritty of how propositions work and what logical space is, but if that view is correct then yes, the world really is just a collection of facts until you take the analysis further into what is and isnt nonsense. Then that question is just confused.

Well, the philosophical use of 'fact' is quite different from the ordinary one. If you try to describe the world in the most general way, what do you get? I guess, the first proposition of the Tractatus has to do with this kind of metaphysical theme. In the philosophical tradition, the world is a world of substances (particular individuals: Socrates) and attributes (properties, qualities or in whatever other way you want to call them: like Ugliness). In a factualist ontology thought, what's basic is something like (the fact) that Socrates is ugly. The individual Socrates and the property of ugliness that he istantiates are in some way derivative. One could think that the need to recognize the existence of facts is semantical: like proper names correspond to individuals and predicates to properties, to (some) sentences correspond facts; so like proper names and predicates go to make up some new linguistic form, the union of individuals and properties make up some new form of extra-linguistic entity that corresponds to sentences (facts).

does the concept of noumena relate to plato's concept of forms?

t. doing original research on semantics and trying to escape the the circlejerk solutions of psychology, neuroscience, fodor, etc

>relate to plato's concept of forms?
what would not relate to platos concept of forms (is a more interesting question)?
>does the concept of noumena
Imagine being a caveman, and you come by trees and seeds, and you have sex with a woman and a baby grows, and you light some sticks on fire and they stay lit and some weird yellow orange stuff is leaking out of it and it hurts when you get too close:

Phenomenon, are all the base apparent sensations given to the being, seeing shapes and colors, and movements, and relations, through the eyes, in the mind, one experiences phenemona:

Nouemena is the supposed 'true, actual, objective objects, that actually exist' whos existence; shape, size, motion, causes the activity which ultimately allows the conscious being to 'see what it sees in its mind',

The caveman does not see atoms, or the electrons leaving the burning wood, does not see in his head how his baby is growing, how sperm exists 'as it is in itself'.

Kant, or anyone, bringing up noumena, is asking: how much can assuredly be known, understood, seen, about the actual pure true reality as it actually exists in and of itself: away from reference frame, optic, illusion, etc.

The mind is a noumena/plato realm of forms seeking machine, of sorts. When you look at a baseball on the ground, you cant see the other side of it: like you cant see the other side of the moon: but in your mind you can sort of psuedo approximate the concept of a sphere, and understand from connecting multiple images and memories the baseball, from different references, to make some 'acknowledged' composite, that goes beyond what the bare bones sense presentation provides you.

>The mind is a noumena/plato realm of forms seeking machine, of sorts.
but at the same time, a massive extraordinary amount of 'data', useful, interesting, natural, invented, discovered, quantity, quality, variance, volume, size of space is of parseable and sensible phenomenon.

Making the realm of forms itself what is simple and barebones, like 2d geometry compared to 4, as what material/substance can produce in its number and relationships, as phenomenon is the bulk of data.

Like how to try to determine, educated guess, what percentage of Mans current understanding/knowledge was what percent is ignorance of the noumenon and what percent is of phenomenon:

Whether man can come any where close to guessing, is one thing, but in Reality, the truth of the situation is the truth:

There is amount of Truth that is "what the universe is: in every sense of those words(what it was, and can be)":

Collective Man has an amount of that 'accurate' understanding, comprehension, conceptualization, utilization, theorization.

(Is the Noumena a moving goal post that equals 'ignorance'?: as man knows more and more about nature, the 'quality, quantity, value of: Noumena' shrinks?)

Collective Man knows more about babies, sperm, burning logs, and trees than ancient man did.

This is all about wondering what knowledge is surface, and what is the meaning of depth in terms of knowledge having to do with any possible subject of human experience and activity, total human possibility, what could possibly occur in the future.

The issue is wiggly. You'd be surprised how often philosophers attempt a dumbass retreat from Kantian dualism into a kind of vulgar Fichtean or Berkeleyan "the world is just what it is for us, there are only phenomena" immanent monism.

Obviously the noumenon idea is logically bankrupt in some sense. But the fundamental issue of how we relate to the external world remains, and philosophers try to dodge it surprisingly often by giving the literal non sequitur and old cliche that "we can't talk about the noumenon by definition." Like, yes, that's why it's logically bankrupt, that's why we have to "deal" only in phenomena, that's all fine, that's the cliche. But the core issue of "SO DO YOU BELIEVE IN A FUCKING EXTERNAL WORLD THAT WE RECEIVE BY SENSA OR NOT???" is still there.

Like, it's not uncommon at all to find people claiming that Husserl was a full-blown Berkeleyan idealist. It just makes no sense. Why would he be?

Even weirder is when embodied cognition people, like some Merleau-Ponty devotees, extend the dodge and deepen its monistic stupidity, by claiming that not only is consciousness just its immanent phenomena, these phenomena are actually synonymous WITH the material/outside/noumenal world, as if that accounts for the relationship of consciousness with materiality. So instead of explaining consciousness they explain it away, and then of course they bleed into all kinds of materialist and antihumanist programs.

This is one of the most bizarre issues in philosophy currently, for how many philosophers only dimly realize its central tensions, and then try to evade talking about them with rhetorical dodges that they have been taught to take on authority as being somehow meaningful.

Yes and no. Yes in Kant's system is inherently Platonic in its presuppositions and operative concepts, no in that Kant would see Plato as an arch-rationalist, trying to talk about the rational constitution of reality (i.e., of God) as a thing in itself, without realising that his categories for doing so are only the conditions of the possibility of HIS OWN experience.

Plato's theory of the soul coming pre-packaged with innate knowledge is a precursor to Kant's deduction of the transcendental conditions of knowledge. But Plato accounts for it differently, because he sees knowledge as knowledge OF reality in itself, ascending in (mystic) perfection until thought becomes synonymous with that pure reality. Kant is arguing against this, he is arguing for the finitude of human knowledge inside that pre-packaged soul.

We know that the noumenon is "out there," and we can infer certain surmises about it that line up nicely with Kant's own pietist Protestant theology (like free will and the existence of God), but we can say nothing else about it by definition. Though "structural" Kantians take Kant to task for the fact that if we can say certain things about it *regularly*, this should be an indication of structural regularities "out there."

How much out of total possible knowledge does Man posses currently?

How much Truth/unknowable Knowledge, exists that is impossible for Man to ever access/know (what does access, know, entail)?

How much of that, is 'approachable'? Is there meaning to: "Fully knowing, understanding, Reality"?, The Universe? To know the totality of facts of the totality of objects? And to be aware of all possible relations between those objects? And the total nature of subjects?

Say there is 'never to be verified Truth x', say no man ever drills to the center of Earth: we have no verification of what is in its center: but there are theories, with different reasons for having different levels of confidence and authritative acclaim:

So the center of the earth would be example of a fact/s, "there is something/s there, it is some way, those things have some potentials"

That could not be fully known, or verified, but it is possible man could use reason and choose using theory very close to the actual condition of the truth.

Or they can be a little off, or a little more off, or a little more off etc.

...

Schopenhauer is a Kantian

>. The world is supposed to be "my world", because of how he sees propositions working through logic.
>So when he says the world, take it as the world from the view of a solopsist.

The "my world" or microcosm is a collection of experiences. The experiences are representations of states-of-affairs.

Hence the claim 'The world of the happy is quite different from that of the unhappy.' - the difference is like that of between A and B here. I

Except to claim something about B is take as if you are outside of A, which is not the case given how Wittgenstein views propositions and logical space

And again like I said, going further to claim something about A and B is to act as if you are outside A and B to make that claim, and here A and B together as supposed to be the totality of "the world" which clearly no one is outside.

Again, think of the solopsist view of thew world.

thank you anons, this was most helpful

I am not claiming anything about B except that it exists and has quantitatively more states-of-affairs than A. A is the solipsist "my world" and its subject cannot say things about B, or any other microcosm (or "the macrocosm") for that matter.

The pic is a misrepresentation ofc as W surely didn't view logical space thusly, he was pretty feisty about set theory anyway.

the bigger the idea, the blurrier it'll be until you can define it in resolution

>the world from the view of a solopsist.
everyone is at least a methodological solipsist whether they admit it or not
because there is no unmediated way of experiencing the world or reality

>Schopenhauer and Nietzsche and Land mocked Kant for that endlessly
More like Schopenhauer masturbated to Kant for that endlessly

And literally who the fuck cares what NEETzsche and Land think

>And literally who the fuck cares what NEETzsche and Land think
who cares what anyone thinks when the only entity I can experience thinking is myself

>I am not claiming anything about B except that it exists and has quantitatively more states-of-affairs than A

That is already going beyond what is possible to Wittgenstein. If all that can be expressed is only in logical space, and logical space is restricted to the private objects which I can designate, then I cannot bridge the gap between my propositions about private objects I am not acquainted with and John Smith's propositions about himself (himself is of course a private object to me)

Since I cannot bridge the gap, logical space is restricted, and since logical space is the totality of possible states of affairs, and the world is the totality of the possible states of affairs which are also the case, then the world becomes restricted to my world.

To be honest I am not entirely sure why you said
You didnt really make an argument, but I took it as you saying that I misread the Tractatus.

>everyone is at least a methodological solipsist whether they admit it or not
>because there is no unmediated way of experiencing the world or reality
it could be (it seems like it is) that the unmediated phenomenal interaction and experience of 'being;the being' with reality (the possibilities, knowledge, understanding, ability, of collective man) is a decent percentage of 'all significant information', regarding the actualness of reality:

Like seeing an iceberg on the surface of the water: lets say the surveyor actually understood the surface above water portion of iceberg 60%, he has mapped out its shape, and plotted it on graphs, used multiple instruments to take temperature, attempted dating techniques, used lasers or something to try to map out inner density, and to detect if anything was frozen in it like a ship or barrel of oil or prehistoric whale:

The difficult aspect is what is even meant by the process to gauge 'how much of the total information regarding that iceberg does the person know': what is the meaning of that conceptual statement, question, asking.

So maybe another person comes along, and they have better equipment, and measure it better, or with some radar device find there is buried treasure hidden underneath: increasing the then total knowledge and understanding about the actual truth of the objective existence of the objects, laws, and their interacting scenario:

And then they wonder about the nature of what is underneath the surface of the iceberg.

Lets say there is 50 feet of ice/berg underneath the surface:

And they theorize about this, about other similar scenarios, where they eventually looked under, and different locations, and context geology, they think it could be 100 feet, or 20, or 200..
one of them guesses educatedly 55 and they all bet on whos closest:

And then another iceberg they do the same thing, except this time the actual distance of iceberg underneath the surface is 3000 feet down:

And they all 200, 100, 77, 300, 500, 50:

pt2

Now how do we know if mans understanding and grasp and relationship with the phenomenon, and what feels like and detects like substantial material, which has a vast bevies of different interactions and catalogueing available:

Is this more like the 50ft iceberg: we only have 50ft of unknown knowledge left until we know all? And little details like the harmonic ossilation of each dust fiber on the iceberg needs to be known at each time from t1 to tinfinity:

simply knowing that dust fibers exist and they could exist on the iceberg and there could be many and they could oscillate at many different ways at many different times:

Is the bulk of that knowledge: the dust aspect does not equal 80% of the knowledge of the iceberg: maybe .0001... maybe if there was life on pluto, that would be 70% of the interest, bulk info...but that would be entirely bias?

Or: are we still closer to caveman than to God, in our understanding and envisionment and grasping of the fundamental substance and essence of nature

...

/thread

>what would not relate to platos concept of forms?
Colors? Do colors have forms? Is there any theory of any other ways color could theoretically exist besides 'atom-light-eye-body-brain-consciousness' relationship?

No its one fact balkanized into a number of misleading and seductive untruths.

>'atom-light-eye-body-brain-consciousness' relationship?
I suppose that would be 'one of the potentially multiple' 'types' of color forms, in the 'Totality Of Possibilities For That Which Has Been Termed Color To Exist'

No. Thats the self righteous protestant world. Dialectics is better

>Making the realm of forms itself what is simple and barebones, like 2d geometry compared to 4,
But at the same time: there might be more possible in theory (eternally impossible in universes of substance material physics) than in substance.

>close, it's farts.
*furiously masturbates*

idk is it?

mayhaps it be

no, the world is a configurations of potentialities (ie.potential facts) which are not facts in themselves, but constitute a far larger portion of reality than the non-virtual.

There are no facts, only interpretations.

why has no one Itt asked for a definition of the word 'facts' we are using?

easily the worst post itt, congratulations.

it's a certain perspective, a useful fiction, that isn't wrong. But I wouldn't call it the Truth.

>dialectics
hegel is the definition of "self-righteous protestant"

there are no facts you fucking mongrel, they don’t exist out there. there are processes that can be slowed down by cognition and then barking noises are made and ither forns of cognition go “ah yes those are the case” and then all the “physical systems” agree “yes, indeed those are the case” and then the barking makes the “”””sound””” ‘fact’ and then idiots LARP as if they’ve just made contact with objective reality. go try to pin down electromagnetism or the quantum vacuum effect you fucknugget nigger

Lies are in the realm of truth.

people itt appear to be on one side assuming (all people partaking in the current language game) are using the same definition of a contentious word as they are:

Facts: Some are assuming it is referring to 'the actual Truth whatever it is, even if man never existed, all the facts of the universe would still be what they are and still be True',

Some seem to be assuming and thus arguing with this assumption in mind it means: 'What Man writes does, or discovers from himself and/or nature and codifies in a multi checked multi backed system agreed upon by enough others'.

And there may be others, and there may be cross relations.

>The world is everything that is the case.
>What is the case (a fact) is the existence of states of affairs.
The world is also what could be and what could HAVE been. W.'s core mistake is assuming that things are (unchanging), while things are constantly becoming.

>The world is also what could be and what could HAVE been.
If something could have been, that means that it wasn't, therefore it isn't the case and isn't part of the world. I don't see how it would still be part of the world if it isn't.

then you'd make for a rather poor sorcerer, sir.

Can we please stop this meme?

no

it's one of nietzsche's famous and most important statements

>>The world is also what could be and what could HAVE been.


yes rationalists claim that what they imagine is the world

could you unpack that?