90
6 In Search of Reality
It is important to note that in order for a particular thing to exist, it must
be possible to separate it out of the surrounding jumble, and perceive it as a
single, well-defined entity. Consider the following fact: At precisely 10:19 a.m.
on Wednesday July 24, 2019 my wristwatch slipped through my fingers, dropped
onto the stone floor and stopped running. With these words I have successfully
carved the event out of the general background.
If facts are things that exist, then it must be possible to individuate and
uniquely designate each one. A fact may be identified by using words, as I
have just done: Could there be, however, some alternative way of singling out
a specific fact from the stream of ongoing reality? This is a very important
question, because it determines whether facts are inevitably bound up with
words. Could the mishap with my wristwatch be individuated in any other
way than by the use of language? Clearly, the word “language” is not restricted
to a natural language such as English, but may be any communicative medium,
for example a symbolic code or the formal language of mathematics.
Language appears to be so intimately involved with reality that Wittgenstein
considered reality to be nothing more than the set of all the propositions which
describe it. Instead of a proposition being a linguistic representation of an objective
fact, he claims that the opposite is true: An objective fact holds in the universe
because the corresponding proposition is a true statement in a language. Is it
reasonable to believe that the essence of a fact is that it’s a claim expressed in
words?
To commonsense wisdom, a fact is primarily something that takes place in
the external world. It is then the observer’s task to size it up and put it into
words. That is why we consider Wittgenstein’s claim to be implausible. But
think of it this way: Suppose I claim that a certain fact X holds true in the
physical world. You would then ask me, “what fact is that?” Until I answer,
there is no specific fact on the table. It requires my statement of the fact to
identify what fact I claim to be true. As explained above, if it is asserted that
a fact exists, it must be possible to separate it out of the surrounding jumble
and identify exactly what fact it is. Perhaps a fact does begin with its verbal
statement, after all.
It is universally assumed that linguistic claims of fact correspond to situations
in the physical world, for otherwise language would be futile. We seem to
believe that regardless of whether we see it or not, the fact is there, and it is our
burden to discern it and try and capture it in words. But as already mentioned,
the immediate question is “what fact are you referring to?” and this requires
words. Words are essential because every fact must be fully determinate if we
are to decide whether or not it is true.
6 In Search of Reality
It is important to note that in order for a particular thing to exist, it must
be possible to separate it out of the surrounding jumble, and perceive it as a
single, well-defined entity. Consider the following fact: At precisely 10:19 a.m.
on Wednesday July 24, 2019 my wristwatch slipped through my fingers, dropped
onto the stone floor and stopped running. With these words I have successfully
carved the event out of the general background.
If facts are things that exist, then it must be possible to individuate and
uniquely designate each one. A fact may be identified by using words, as I
have just done: Could there be, however, some alternative way of singling out
a specific fact from the stream of ongoing reality? This is a very important
question, because it determines whether facts are inevitably bound up with
words. Could the mishap with my wristwatch be individuated in any other
way than by the use of language? Clearly, the word “language” is not restricted
to a natural language such as English, but may be any communicative medium,
for example a symbolic code or the formal language of mathematics.
Language appears to be so intimately involved with reality that Wittgenstein
considered reality to be nothing more than the set of all the propositions which
describe it. Instead of a proposition being a linguistic representation of an objective
fact, he claims that the opposite is true: An objective fact holds in the universe
because the corresponding proposition is a true statement in a language. Is it
reasonable to believe that the essence of a fact is that it’s a claim expressed in
words?
To commonsense wisdom, a fact is primarily something that takes place in
the external world. It is then the observer’s task to size it up and put it into
words. That is why we consider Wittgenstein’s claim to be implausible. But
think of it this way: Suppose I claim that a certain fact X holds true in the
physical world. You would then ask me, “what fact is that?” Until I answer,
there is no specific fact on the table. It requires my statement of the fact to
identify what fact I claim to be true. As explained above, if it is asserted that
a fact exists, it must be possible to separate it out of the surrounding jumble
and identify exactly what fact it is. Perhaps a fact does begin with its verbal
statement, after all.
It is universally assumed that linguistic claims of fact correspond to situations
in the physical world, for otherwise language would be futile. We seem to
believe that regardless of whether we see it or not, the fact is there, and it is our
burden to discern it and try and capture it in words. But as already mentioned,
the immediate question is “what fact are you referring to?” and this requires
words. Words are essential because every fact must be fully determinate if we
are to decide whether or not it is true.