Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by blueflow 1601 days ago
He is exactly right. The universe as it is and how we humans perceive it are two different worlds. Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up and have no equivalent in the physical universe, but we still use them because it fulfills some purpose for us.
1 comments
tgv 1601 days ago
> Many words that we consider "abstract" are made up

What have you been smoking? All words are made up. But that isn't related to the question fact vs interpretation at all. The word "Earth" is made up, your name is made up, "human" is made up, the air that you breathe is made up, yet you are (most likely) a human on Earth, and you'd hate it if that air suddenly disappeared.

Anyway, the quote contradicts itself/reduces itself to ravings of a lunatic, so isn't worth taking seriously.

link
blueflow 1601 days ago
"Earth", "Air" and "Human" are not abstract nouns because they have physical things we can match those words to.

Contrast that to abstract nouns like "truth", "danger" or "happiness", which are actually interpretations of something other. Statements using these tend to be opinions or non-verifiable. Fact-Checking doesn't work for them.

link
hunterb123 1601 days ago
That supports what @tgv is saying, not the quote.

> "There are no facts, only interpretations.

Too absolute, some things are objective, some subjective.

Not everything is subjective, like he's implying.

The quote sounds deep, but it falls apart to 3rd grade reading comprehension.

link
blueflow 1601 days ago
I was more arguing his post. In hindsight, i think he interpreted the "have no physical equivalent" part differently. I meant it more like, that what the words are referring to, the concepts behind it. Not the words itself.

I'm still saying Nietzsche is right with the quote. That he is right does not forbid to mentally work with the concept of objectivity. See it more of an invitation to question the objectivity of everything.

link
hunterb123 1601 days ago
> That he is right does not forbid to mentally work with the concept of objectivity.

Yeah, that doesn't mean anything. The quote taken directly makes it wrong as it conflicts with objectivity, any other interpretation makes it edgy, fanciful, and pointless, as GP pointed out.

> See it more of an invitation to question the objectivity of everything.

That's what everyone already does when they reason through something objective. The quote is un-profound in that interpretation (which imo is reaching)

link
blueflow 1601 days ago
I disagree, my interpretation of the quote is different.
link