ARTelevision

Posts and responses to several threads here address the issue of whether one considers the world as composed of facts, experience, points of view, and so on - or some combination of these entities or conditions.

The epistemological issues underlying a discussion of this sort become evident after a few post/response iterations.

I tend to see so called "facts" as measurements and calculations taken from particular points of view within certain sets of parameters.

These so called "facts" ultimately are based on belief systems - belief systems based solely on assumptions.

It has always been simpler for me to view events, observations, statements, and facts, as relative and substantial only in terms of how they inform particular views.

I see a process of discussion as statements of opinion, observation, and so on, followed by relevant responses. I find it educational and illuminative to consider other points of view while stating my own.

As for the notion that argumentation, debate, or some dialectical pursuit of theses, antitheses, and syntheses are methods of arriving at "truth," those sorts of procedures strike me as useless, emotional, merely contentious, and ego-driven.

I prefer discussion over debate. It's that simple.

Your thoughts?

__________________
create evolution