Does everybody (anybody) agree with Nietzsche that there are no facts per se, only "interpretations"?

Question

Think about it: facts come from whom? People. No matter in what discipline and to whatever degree of scientific method it's still a human being who's stating a "fact" and therefore must be subject to some degree of subjectiveness. Total objectivity being impossible, therefore, we have sets of interpretations which certain groups in certain times under differing sets of conditions will label as "facts". Wherein have I gone wrong?

Answer 1

Not me.

You are wrong and its already been debated thoroughly primarily on the foundations of logic.
You might want to get an update on your view.

Read Wittgenstein (esp. The Tractatus!)

Answer 2

It all depends on what we all agree the definition of 'facts' actually is. If we say that it is something which we all agree is in someway 'true' then we would have to agree on what could be accepted as true. Nietzsche believed that we all create our own reality that no two people look at things in the same way. That people can disagree on what Nietzsche either said or meant is a demonstration of how it is impossible for there to be facts or truth. Everything is relative from the point of view of the observer and we have many different interpretations to choose from. As soon as we choose an interpretation we alter it to our own purposes, we modify it to meet our own subjective criteria. If this were not so people would not disagree about everything.
I used to think that in the area of Maths - which is tautology writ large- there must be facts until I read that in string theory there is 'proof' that, in one dimension (there being something like 13 different dimensions) A*B is no the same as B*A. Is nothing sacred!

Answer 3

In my history and literature classes in college, the professors would always bring up the fact that history is based on different experiences of different people. Twenty-five different people would tell 25 different stories about the same situation depending on their beliefs, backgrounds, and even how they were feeling that day or within the moment of reflection. The literary theory deconstructionism also speaks to this point. But, to go around and around about it could drive you nuts. I think there are different levels of subjectivity for different people and different situations. A cloud does not retain the same shape for any constant period of time. In fact, it is barely a shape at all. Or is it? Sorry, that was the only analogy I could think of. But really, everything is an interpretation. I did a term paper deconstructing Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as a feminist novel. Liberal professors are good for getting English majors out on a limb...

Anyway, yes, things happen and history books keep track of them. History books may also include language with the intent or subconscious intent to persuade the reader.

Math problems are pretty factual.

Answer 4

From a philosophical point of view Nietzsche is correct. Allow me to explain. Matter is real in its perception only. Matter exists in a different form and shape during every nano second of its existence. When you look at any form of visible matter you see what you think you see, what your knowledge tells you you are seeing and the interpretation your senses have placed upon the matter. This means that matter is subjective.
The truth of matter is that it is in a constant state of change,
becoming something else, something different as it passes through time. It is not the matter that is real but your perception of it. For example, as you read this sentence ask yourself," what is real the words themselves or the thought that created the words?" A book will change over time, the thoughts that created the book will not.
Whenever you look at any physical matter, you see what you think you are seeing and believe you are seeing. Also, at times, you see only what you want to see. The physical matter itself is conditioned by your thought of it. No one else sees the same sunset as you do. Ask yourself another question," what is real.the tear I shed in a moment of sadness or the sadness itself?" The tear dissipates and quickly becomes something else, but the sadness you felt never changes and exists forever.

Answer 5

A fact is not merely a statement or assertion about something; these, indeed are always made based on our interpretation. Facts are what really are out there, what are interpretations are trying to come close to. As fallible beings with limited knowledge, we are always unable to come directly to the facts, but we can come close. The scientific method, for example, moves our theories towards the facts.

Answer 6

It's true, all information comes from unreliable sources. Either you must take the word of someone else (even experts are occasionally mistaken), or you must believe your own senses, which are fallible. On the other hand, that's a confusing way to live, so for many purposes we must accept a certain level of reliability as "good enough", for the sake of practicality.

Answer 7

well, then Nietzsche's saying is not a "fact". so it might be only a subjective interpretation, so there might be facts, thank lord!!!

no one can agree with him, agree means you think what he is saying is a fact. Nietzsche himself cannot agree with Nietzsche. it's contradiction. although truth is a social reality, it's not subjective. social reality is independent some how from individual reality.

Answer 8

Perception creates reality. The way we percieve something to be real is the way in which it becomes real. Who's to say that the way you see blue is the same way I see the same color? and how would we ever know anyway? Yes, i believe there are really no "facts" only interpretations of truths.

Answer 9

Ever read about WORDVIRUS by W.S. Burroughs? The word "fact" is made up by humans...does it exist beyond the word...stuff like that...but anyway...everybody perceives "reality" in a different way....

Answer 10

I totally agree with Nietzsche, and I love his books