By definition, facts are facts. Not my facts, not your facts:
the facts ("Just the facts, ma'am" says Sherlock Holmes).
And if my facts aren't your facts and / or if your facts aren't my
facts, then by definition they aren't facts.
While that may be the epitome of obviousness, there's actually
something very subtle afoot here: facts are facts (not my facts, not
your facts: the facts) by agreement alone. Agreeing
that facts are facts, is a self-generated stand on what
is. It's also possible to take a self-generated stand for my facts
being my facts and your facts being your facts so that if they're the
same or if there's some overlap between your facts and my facts, it's
just a happy co-incidence.
The latter stand (my facts are my facts and your facts are your facts)
of what is. "My facts are my facts" and "your facts are your facts" are
not standing on what is.
"God only creates what
We have choice in the matter of facts being facts or merely
The possibility that facts are the same for everyone whereas
are unique for everyone, is a stand each of us takes after due
diligence and due consideration. Be careful: even if "facts are the
same for everyone" is factual, being righteous about it turns it
That's bad enough. What's even worse is even if "facts
aren't the same for everyone" is factual, being righteous
about it turns it into an
also. The exception proves the rule.
What makes the difference worthwhile? Why even bother? Try this on for
size: if there's a factual railroad crossing and I don't stop in time
to avoid being struck by a train because in my
it's not a fact that it's a railroad crossing, it doesn't
as well as if there's a factual railroad crossing and I stop in time to
avoid being struck by a train because it's a fact that it's a railroad
crossing. Personal stands not withstanding, differentiating between
(and the stand we take on differentiating between facts and
of necessity has an aspect of
"the real worldworks better this way"
At this juncture, it would be easy for this conversation to
into a morass of debate about the difference between "facts" and
being just semantics. If so, I suggest you consider it's
actually more than that it's just semantics: consider that
this is all semantics:
all of it. We've already semanticized that facts are facts
- not my facts, not your facts: the facts.
God only creates what is
ie "what is" has already been semanticized ... and ... we
may have differing
about what is. The facts have already been semanticized
... and ... we may have differing
about the facts. That's only profound if it's a stand taken on what is,
a profundity that's drastically diminished when it's a stand coming
from righteousness ie coming from being right.
You have a right to your own
not your own facts - not because it's the law of the land,
nor because it's what we believe in (and notice some people tout their
opinionsas facts). No, it's because thatthe world
is yours and yours alone, and
of facts is all of ours, is empirical, measurable,
That train at the railroad crossing? It's a fact. What it is, it is for
God only creates what is.
More examples aren't needed. Examples don't prove it. What proves it is
is yours and yours alone, and
of facts is ours together, is self-evident.
Footnote: facts and what's real revisited:
In retrospect, I realize I've blurred the edges between facts
and what's real in this essay (it's true -
Here's my clarification:
Facts are things that are known or proved to be true. What's
real is something that actually exists ie is not
That train at the railroad crossing? It's better designated as
real than as a fact. And rather than say
"It's real that October has 31 days" we say "It's
a fact that October has 31 days.".