From: the.beez.speaks@gmail.com
On 11-04-2025 04:19, dxf wrote:
> On 10/04/2025 8:40 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
>> In article ,
>> dxf wrote:
>>> On 9/04/2025 9:28 pm, albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> I'm with Anton Ertl here. If you have a clear idea what has to be done,
>>>> formulate it and send in a proposal. (But I'm as guilty as you
>>>> regards other matters ...).
>>>
>>> Why must it be done? To please you? If the committee is satisfied with
>>> the status quo nothing need be done. And that's what you're seeing.
>>
>> You must do it, because you are not satisfied with the standard.
>
> Chuck Moore might beg to differ.
>
> 'Matters of fact or truth or beauty cannot be voted on. They speak for
> themselves.'
>
> If one sees truth of what's been said, one acts on it. To wait for
> authority to tell one what to do indicates only subservience.
>
>>
>
> I'm not aware anything was deleted.
>
A proposition can be true a priori (conceptual only, like every bachelor
is unmarried - even if I've never seen the guy). A fact is a state of
actuality - and hence can only be evaluated as true or false a
posteriori, since such proposition has to be confronted with the real
world to establish its "truth" value (in the words of Wittgenstein -
with a touch of Quine).
In the eyes of John Locke beauty is a secondary quality - and hence (as
the saying goes) "in the eye of the beholder". You may establish it
intersubjectively - but never objectively. Consequently, it cannot be
"self evident".
So in short, no, you cannot vote on truth or fact (in spite of what
postmodernism claims), but you can most certainly vote on beauty.
Hans Bezemer
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
