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.
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.
Because without facts, what you have is not “truth.” It’s either speculation or bullshit.
But how do you define “facts?” And how do you define “truth?” And how do you define “is?”
We’ll see who cancels who?
Thanks, Jordan.
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.
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.