Class is in session!
GW Swicord - As an editor, you must have a very interesting time with he various "facts" that are presented to you in various ways. I can't decide if I envy you or pity you. I am a believer of the oldest school of all - Stoicism, in the original form; before "Stephano-Colbertus Pex-Gaga Plato-Itis Me-Firstius" changed the popular perceived definition.
["Virtue, reason, and natural law are prime directives. By mastering passions and emotions, Stoics believe it is possible to overcome the discord of the outside world and find peace within oneself. Stoicism holds that passion distorts truth, and that the pursuit of truth is virtuous."]
["The ancient Stoics are often misunderstood because the terms they used pertained to different concepts in the past than they do today. The word stoic has come to mean unemotional or indifferent to pain, because Stoic ethics taught freedom from passion by following reason. But the Stoics did not seek to extinguish emotions, only to avoid emotional troubles by developing clear judgment and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration."]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism]
For the remainder of this class session,
, to those who don't want to accept the Wikipedia definition of fact (below) as a basis for continued discussion, and wish to insinuate that there is some other, more valid etymology available, please go start your own thread; call it "my fantasy megalomania revealed" or "my boyfriend's website has all the answers" or whatever, but please be silent in this class. Thank you.
Stating I am a believer in Stoicism is too weak a word. Practitioner would be more accurate. I'm not talking about me to get attention, I'm giving you a context to use to understand my interpretations of facts (just as you did by stating you were an Editor etc, right up front), which I think supports your very accurate point ->
I believe that we all view our world in an inevitably subjective fashion,
As someone else pointed out, this is sometimes called "bias" and is in fact a surmountable obstacle. The solution appears to be also sharing the background context in which a statement was formulated, as a means of further enhancing communication. It was easy for me to get an idea of "where you were coming from" when you stated you were an editor etc. If I didn't have the background of what an editor does, I could just look up "editor" on Wikipedia and get an idea (if I wasn't too lazy and self-centered to look it up).
I'd like to continue with the now-fabled quote of the "Etymology and usage" of the word "fact" from Wikipedia; which I hope can be deemed acceptable by all parties, since it supports each and every seperate view of "facts" that I remember being presented in this thread; in their various forms. It could also serve as a guide and a reminder to those who are too lazy to read it themselves. Shall we begin?
The word fact derives from the Latin Factum, and was first used in English with the same meaning: "a thing done or performed", a use that is now obsolete.[3]
The common usage, "something that has really occurred or is the case", dates from the middle of the sixteenth century.[4] Fact is also synonymous with truth or reality, as distinguishable from conclusions or opinions. This use is found for instance in the phrase Matter of fact,[5] and in "... not history, nor fact, but imagination."
Fact also indicates a matter under discussion deemed to be true or correct, such as to emphasize a point or prove a disputed issue; (e.g., "... the fact of the matter is ...").[6][7]
Alternatively, "fact" may also indicate an allegation or stipulation of something that may or may not be a "true fact",[8] (e.g., "the author's facts are not trustworthy"). This alternate usage, although contested by some, has a long history in standard English.[9]
Fact may also indicate findings derived through a process of evaluation, including review of testimony, direct observation, or otherwise; as distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.[10] This use is reflected in the terms "fact-find" and "fact-finder" (e.g., "set up a fact-finding commission").[11]
Stephen Colbert's campaign to save the African elephants by editing the Wikipedia is just too, too, something...)
Perverted?
I also used to teach civics, and I'm pretty impressed with how so many folks have really kept with the OP's title for the thread (perhaps even unconsciously).
I am also. It was also gratifying to see so much discussion and interest, and I am satisfied that at least one person has been intellectually empowered as a result. Of course the side ventures into science, religion and homosexuality have left me wondering if another Stephen Colbert or four have joined in, but that's not important.
Much of the talk about Wikipedia and the tendency of modern media to spread messages without verifying their content is essentially about whether or how "facts" get to be "on your side."
Very accurate. However,
in the end, there is no substitute for honesty. Who was it that said "Being about to be hanged concentrates the mind wonderfully" ? ... **connect** with the Stoic Marcus Aurelius (yes, THAT Marcus Aurelius) quotation -> "If you work at that which is before you, following right reason seriously, vigorously, calmly, without allowing anything else to distract you, but keeping your divine part pure, as if you were bound to give it back immediately; if you hold to this, expecting nothing, but satisfied to live now according to nature, speaking heroic truth in every word which you utter, you will live happy. And there is no man able to prevent this."
Class is dismissed!
