I think what you are saying makes sense. By the way, it seemed that your definition was “existent state of affairs”. If that is the case, do you mean physically existent instead of logically existent?
Makes sense to me.
True, but some definitions help us make better sense of the world (I know, I know, better is subjective). Some distinctions might be more useful to professional philosophers than to someone like me.
He went to his Ready Room where he got some tea, Earl Grey, hot. Don’t worry, Number One’s in control of the bridge.
Yes. To me, “state of affairs” implies physically/empirically existent. Sorry if that wasn’t clear to you.
Right, basically we each find some definitions to be more useful than others. It’s just that the definitions that one person finds more useful may differ from those that another person finds more useful.
Would you say it’s a fact that the sun will “rise” tomorrow?
This is a context question. You can’t throw a “fact” out in a void.
In the sense where Whittle says it’s a fact X or Z will be elected, if there is any sense one can make that intelligible - that is where the fact is at.
If I may be so bold, I would say that vive’s meaning is that the “correct” definition is the contextual one-the definition that Whittle intended, which the audience must interpret in a meaningful way.
I don’t think there was ever any danger of Obama not “going with the program”. He’s been an establishment man through and through his entire career. I’m sure he’s more liberal on social issues, like gay marriage and abortion, but those are surface issues. They have nothing to do with the things that really matter to the establishment. So his and other politicians’ stances on those issues are part of the packaging/advertising, nothing more.
I don’t think the political system is all that polycentric - at least not when it comes to the heart of it (the military-industrial complex). People there seem to be of largely like mind. Even the establishment in general has a lot of common ideology. That is, I don’t see a whole lot of diversity of opinion within the establishment. The Chicago machine may have helped get Obama elected to the Senate to begin with, but from what I’ve read, Obama’s had establishment connections essentially from birth.
Here’s why I don’t think Obama was briefed after being elected on why the wars wouldn’t end: he initially promised to vote against the telecom-amnesty bill, but then turned around and voted for it. That was before he was elected.
Why do you say that? And who do you think is the new Ford and who the ragged-out Kia?
Each of two people (e.g. GotLucky and myself) uses a different definition of “fact”. Which definition is the correct one?
The one that makes the most intelligible sense within the framework of the pertinent information at hand. That’s for you to decide. Do the hermeneutic, make it work - if you can’t move along.
In so much as a fact exists within a set up framework, it has to be in that framework - or it is nonsense.
In so much as it exists within a logical space, it must exist with in a logical space.
But that is beside the point,
there should be no need to analyize wether or not it is inevitable X or Y are going to be elected. If you can make sense of that statement (I can), than it works. it meets a certain set of expectations and actions within a relevant framework to me. This shouldn’t require much analyzing, in fact I doubt it can really have much at all.