Talk:Brute fact

ethical facts
Characterizing ethical facts as institutional rather than brute is correct, but certainly not NPOV, in the Wikipedia sense. There are many philosophers who would argue the reverse. John McDowell, for instance, refers to many ethical principles as 'demands of reason', which would presumably give them a similar status to, e.g. mathematical facts, described here as (probably) 'brute'. Ncsaint 11:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right! I'll change it a bit... Velho 12:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What I'm reading at the moment, gives what may be a different account. It gives an example of 'J.H. signed a chaque' and says that it may be a brute fact in some contexts, and not in others. It says that the status of brute fact is relative to another fact. This should be included, I think. Also, it might be worth including the more common but less technical definition as "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable" Oxford Companion to Philosophy 2005 "Brute Fact". I don't know anything on this subject myself, so I don't want to change anything.

Hope the edit is ok :)

Definition of 'brute fact'
EXISTENCE is the only reality that cannot ever be explained as grounded on another reality more fundamental i.e. radical than EXISTENCE ITSELF.

The question then is how man comes to know existence.

Simple, man comes to know existence by his experience of existence.

For example, how does man come to know the nose in his face?

One man by the experience of touching the nose in his face, and several men by mutual experience of touching each other's nose.

Now, at this point, some thinkers might insist that it is not existence but non-existence that is the even more fundamental and radical reality than existence.

But what is non-existence at all, when man cannot even think up what is non-existence, except from his knowledge of existence?

It is not at all possible for man to know in a way what is non-existence, unless man first knows what is existence, and then by contradicting existence, man comes to know in a way what is non-existence.

Take the example of the nose in our face, we first come to know the existence of the nose in our face, and then in a way we know what is the non-existence of the nose in our face, by contradicting the fact that the nose exists in our face.

Enact this experiment:

1. Let several men touch each other's nose.

2. There, you know now you all individually have a nose in your face.

3. Now, let one of you (don’t do this, but it can be done with a doll to attain the same purpose of the experiment) slit off his nose for the love of knowledge.

4. Now, everyone knows what is 'no nose', starting with the doll representing one of the human participants in the experiment.

What then is a brute fact?

It is an instance of existence that cannot be explained by another fact more fundamental than itself the brute fact, because the brute fact is already the ultimate fundamental ground that is the basis of all other facts whatsoever, and the only example of a brute fact is the fact of existence.

There has always and everywhere been existence; and even in the status in which status there was no universe existing that is today investigated by scientists i.e. physical cosmologists: there is existence.

And existence could not have come from non-existence – except in an irrational fiction for the amusement of our mind.

Think about that!

Pachomius2000 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Pachomius2000