>Apparently, you are divided between two understandings of reality: either
>thought is primary and sense or fact secondary, or sensory data is primary
>and our thought about it secondary.
The answer is that thought is primary. Our senses are merely a faculty
for the inspiration of thoughts. It is possible that there are other
unknown faculties greared to the same purpose.
>In either case, you could follow each
>claim to its logical conclusion. I am sure that you can understand that
>is merely an academic exercise, at some point both perspectives meld into
>each other when a decisive action must be made, even on a micro-behavioral
I disagree. In the search for truth I find no subtlety unimportant.
I also argued, and have yet been unanswered, that it is possible that
we are being decieved at all times in a Cartesian fashion (i.e. I could
be in the Matrix.) The ultimate implication of this is very important.
I cannot prove that anyone or anything exists outside of myself. The
implications of this are, none will doubt, tremendous.
>When Foucault reports that during specific historical periods certain
>practices were evident, a verification could be made by researching any
>documentation from that period. Why wouldn't inductive proof be considered
>viable verifying evidence?
Although I would not consider F to be factual, I do consider him to be
useful. The inductive "proof" (it doesn't actually prove in the
strictest sense of the word) is something we all utilize in daily life.
But the "viable verifying evidence" doesn't prove. I cannot know the
laws of physics, I only hypothesize and try to find a theory that mimics
closely the phenomena I believe I observe.
>Especially when deductive arguments or even
>nomothetic arguments are guilty of generalizing from one culture or
>period to all others as if that perspective is omniscient! I find
>Method convincing and real because he does not suppose a progressive
>mechanism nor a causality but instead looks at and reports on actual
>the mechanisms for each being distinct.
I agree that no deductive proof is possible for the corporeal world.
Through my last message I am trying to trigger a debate about deductive
proof in the non-corporeal world, where I can determine (or possibly
have faith in) fundamental principles upon which I build.
>When you say that you cannot gain fact empirically, you are committing a
>contradiction. Fact is empirical, by definition, unless you are using a
>definition that I have not heard of! The problem with empiricism is that
>is driven by a hidden ideology.
I'm glad you agree, but I think we are having a semantic difficulty.
Fact will be defined a fact that is corporeal or empirical. Truth will
be a transendental truth. (Sorry, I can't figure out how to define the
words without using them, but I think you get the fundamental
My position (using our new deffinitions) is that fact can never be
discovered. Only truth can be known beyond doubt to us.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com