reason is absolute in and of itself that thing in which it is said to be, reason, rational and substantiating, absent from wavering or ill effects, completely durable and absolutely generous to what it does, not impartial to grace.
Nathan
Yes, once a fact is grasped it is indeed self-evident, as in the fact is itself and needs no other ‘evidence’ than that it has been understood. Just as truth=reality=fact=exists=is, all of these mean the same thing although can be usefully used in different ways to capture subtler types of meanings within that broader context of all meaning the same thing.
A=A is imperative, one grasped, cannot be undone or refuted. Only the pathological mind comes up with distorted ways of doubting this, like such minds will also tell you that 1+1 is not always 2, they somehow twist weird nonsense into words as if it has meaning. But we can ignore such non-philosophical things.
“Reality is absolute” as you say, well yes but that does not mean that we know all of what reality is, or that there is not more beyond what WE experience as reality; it simply means that, per the definition of reality, it is indeed absolute in the sense that it is an undeniable fact that it exists and that it is ‘everything’ (as defined) or at least includes and is in sum total ‘everything’ (again as defined).
Simply put, if someone wants to posit that something exists beyond reality then they are not in fact talking about reality but a sub-reality or just some part of reality itself. Therefore such a person is merely contradicting themselves, just like the person who says 1+1 does not always =2 is also contradicting themselves.
If facts are self-evident, what do we need reason for?
Once grasped, once understood, facts are self-evident. That doesn’t mean it takes no effort to initially grasp them.
Photosynthesis is a fact, which we now know. People 1000 years ago did not know this was a fact, yet even back then it was still a fact.
Once we understood this was a fact, its “fact-ness” or being a fact is a self-evident fact. You can correctly state, “Photosynthesis is a fact, and it is a fact that photosynthesis is a fact” without contradicting or repeating yourself.
The title of this topic should probably be changed to “Fact-ness is self-evident”. Once a fact is understood as true, as being a fact, then this is self-evidently true simply by the nature of what facts are. Of course we might be wrong, perhaps the sun really does orbit around the earth and our “facts” about the earth orbiting the sun and how our solar system works are really not facts at all. But that would be a case of mistaken identity, for in that case we are not talking about facts at all but rather something else.
Fact-ness is somewhat independent of facts themselves or of the reasons why something is true. Fact-ness itself is really interesting, as is the fact (lol) that we can understand facts-as-such while other animals cannot do that. Fact-ness itself is a separate level of understand from the things which the fact describes. Like above, we can talk about photosynthesis and what it is, how it works, etc. but we can also SEPARATELY talk about the fact of photosynthesis, the fact that it is a fact. The idea that something is true adds another dimension to simply talking about the thing itself.
A squirrel might see an acorn and know there is an acorn there, but in its mind it is not thinking “it is a fact there is an acorn there” and this is highly significant as pertains to the difference mentally between humans and squirrels.
This is also why one great philosopher once said, “truth is the concept of concepts.”
Not all facts are self-evident. Some are immediately obvious and don’t require much proof—for example, “I am thinking” or “Something exists rather than nothing.” These are self-evident because we experience them directly and don’t need outside evidence to verify them.
But many facts require evidence, context, or even specialized knowledge to be understood as true. For example, facts about scientific theories, historical events, or even day-to-day things—like how airplanes work—aren’t necessarily self-evident. They rely on complex systems, studies, or even language and definitions that make them understandable only with added information.
So, while some facts may seem self-evident, most truths in our lives need interpretation, context, and proof to be fully grasped. And even what we take as “self-evident” can be deeply influenced by our culture, background, and assumptions.
The very temperature today is not a self evident fact, we need a thermometer to know the degree of heat outside. Not self evident, other than a vague and subjective, its nice, warm, cold, etc…
Sure, but the point I already made about this is that, once understood, temperature itself AND the specific temperature today are self-evidently facts. As in, the fact that we know these and that we know HOW we know them, and that we know what this means, are all truths which are self-evidently true in their own sufficient and necessary contexts. And to grasp this concept is to understand the nature of facts, something that IS TRUE regardless of human opinions or subjective interpretations or our feelings or beliefs.
Further is the understanding that even though we can be mistaken about certain facts, and even though we can be mistaken about whether or not we are or might be mistaken about certain facts, does not belie the FACT that facts-as-such exist and that the universe itself means something in pure factual terms. All of this is a somewhat logically self-evident set of understandings-- in other words, once the mind gets to the point of being able to grasp the first step in this process of understanding the further steps manifest themselves naturally and self-evidently, at least to those minds not dishonestly closed off or damaged to truthful appreceptions.
Said another way, the “fact of facts” is simply facticity itself. Or is itself simply another fact. The underlying metaphysical-meaningful nature and content of any of these statements is always the same: truth, simply and plain truth that cannot be ignored or denied or wished away or “contextualized out of existence” because it already includes its own contexts entirely and absolutely… that is what truth means.
The whole truth and nothing but the truth. The full scope of meaning in its purer form as applied to specific truths and then to the nature of those truths as truths and then to the nature of the statements about these truths and then to the nature of truth itself. All of this is bundled up within the concept of ‘facts’ and it is all indeed quite self-evident, if one bothers looking that is.
The sad mistake is when you read people like Wittgenstein, they come so close but then their academic instinct takes over and they feel compelled to make it all hopelessly more complicated and contrived than it really is. Falling into the nature of language as an excuse to avoid falling into truth… what a particularly proper fate for an academic posing as a philosopher.
A fact can be true at some particular times, at all particular times, or of the timeness of times.
But if it cannot be true at any time, it is not a fact. If an impossibility is presented as if it is a fact, it is a false fact… which is an oxymoron.
The fact that an impossibility is impossible is an example of a self-evident fact upon which to evaluate the factuality (truth) of claims.
Do we consider claims factual until proven false? Should we?
“But if it cannot be true at any time, it is not a fact.”
I quite don’t understand this claim.
The fact “Biden is the president” is true right now but won’t be a fact next March. Next March, the statement “Biden was the president” will be a fact, yes, but the two statements are not the same.
No shit. Every statement of truth has its proper sufficient and necessary context. In both space and time, and also in meaning. Not sure what is hard to understand about that.
Speaking of which, Biden was never president. He was installed because of an election coup in 2020. So “Biden the fake president” would be more accurate.
I partly agree and disagree with this. It’s true that the aim of a guy like Wittgenstein (or Derrida) seems to try the utmost to overcomplicate things unnecessarily. They create systems which are kinda of protected under an incomprehensible jargon, and yet their purported mission is to search for truth- but the way they present their ideas is only comprehensible to themselves or to some initiated few. The whole enterprise becomes meaningless then, because most of the time you’re not conversing with Wittgenstein, you’re trying to decipher his jargon. And when you finally manage to decipher it, you ask yourself: “well, that’s it? You’re saying the same things many others have said before, why the undecipherable jargon then?”
I’m not a Randian, but Ayn Rand did have a point with objectivism and her A=A law of no contradiction. Let’s forget for a moment that she was the high priestess of capitalism. Let’s take a look at her division between objectivity and subjectivity.
That is the law of identity. And let’s find out how she went wrong from there:
¿Is this true:
And here’s an excerpt from back when I included all my tangents instead of filtering them out… blushes…
Lol I simply mentioned Rand’s name and you went there and researched your whole history in this place? 
Nice job totally avoiding contact with the content.
Why are you insulating yourself and sheltering yourself from reality, Maxx? Is it super scary?
Does it make you feel vulnerable to come out of the coffin of your egoism?
Jupiter, is it you?
I am going to talk a little about Rand’s objectivism and her take on subjectivity. We can, theoretically, discuss about it later.
If you only wanna talk to Jupiter about it, then leave me out.
I will post here a text I wrote about Rand’s objectivism elsewhere some months ago:
“(…)
a) Objectivism
What is objectivism? I will try to succinctly describe this system in my own words.
The universe exists. It is not a deception of the senses, nor something we must first imagine, and then see our idea materialized. In other words, the universe, and the things we find in it, exist independently of our perception, and even if we were irrational animals incapable of abstraction, the universe would still be there. Thus, first we have the universe, then we have everything in it, including humankind.
Human life, therefore, presupposes the existence of the universe and the world before it, and it is up to human reason to interpret this world, its phenomena, and our place in it. Reason is an attribute exclusive to the human species, our greatest distinguishing feature. If one wants to have a valid understanding of the universe, one can only rely on reason, not on emotion, feelings, or the free will of each individual, because chaos would necessarily arise from that. Each person says something different and is guided by their own personal feelings. It follows that if an individual wants to have a valid understanding of the world, which is only possible through reason, they must recognize reason as an absolute, the only absolute for those who seek understanding.
And when the individual uses this faculty, their reasoning, to examine the world, what do they see? A hostile world that needs to be conquered, transformed, so that humankind can live properly in it. And how will they do this, proceed with this conquest? By relying on others? By waiting for things to fall from the sky? Obviously not. They need food, shelter, and clothing, and all of this requires WORK. And the more comfort they desire, the more they have to work. Because nothing is given to them for free. And from this it follows that, evidently, those who work the hardest should, logically, have the best things, earn more, eat better. As a result of their effort. But has this always been the case in human history? Or have a few always taken advantage of the efforts of others to live with the least possible effort? Could there be at least one type of economic system that guaranteed that everyone had the right only to the fruits of their labor? Without usurping, stealing, or begging for the products of others’ labor?
Objectivism thus has as its corollary the inevitable defense of capitalism. It is in capitalism that this worldview develops to perfection. Since, at least in theory, free enterprise reigns, which in practical terms means, “Do you want to eat, clothe yourself, or get rich? Get by!”
The system thus develops with a logic that is beyond reproach. A hostile world that needs to be conquered. A being with the reasoning capacity that allows such conquest. Dominating the world, this being realizes that if he wants anything, he will have to fight for it. But he looks around and sees that some make an effort, others don’t, and reason itself tells him that those who make an effort are right, they don’t contradict themselves; they want something, they go and fight for it. While those who are dependent on others want something but don’t want to make the slightest effort for it.
It follows that Objectivism has a morality, an ethics, that naturally arises from the system’s premises. Who is ethical? Those who don’t depend on anyone. Those who enjoy the fruits of their labor. Regardless of whether they are poor or rich. And where is the immorality? In not creating anything by waiting for something to fall from the sky. In appropriating the benefits of others by any means without having done anything to deserve it. In wanting to do well in life without understanding that life is, above all, a struggle for survival. An individual struggle, because Objectivism doesn’t start from society to explain humankind, but sees society as a collection of individuals with more or less conflicting, more or less similar interests.
Since the system views individual effort as a virtue, altruism is automatically seen as harmful, as it not only encourages weakness but also harms the part of society that actually works, that truly sustains society.
From all this, it follows that, for Objectivism, there is not just one ethical, morally upright type of man. This man is an ideal to be sought and exalted, because he believes in his own principles, fights and even dies for them, always with the conviction of being right, because he lives entirely according to the rules he rationally and willingly chooses to follow. This ideal type of man is personified by the characters in both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged,” and in both cases, the protagonists fight against systems that seek to oppress individuals in the name of the collective, yet still profit from their labor.
b) A=A (Law of Identity)
From this strictly logical nature of objectivism, Ayn Rand coined the Law of Identity as essential to understanding her system. A=A. What does this mean? That any thing, as long as it exists, is what it is. It is not our thoughts that give things an identity, a nature. They exist independently of our thoughts about them. This is a logical deduction from the fact that the universe presupposes the existence of humankind, not the other way around.
This law is actually an update of the famous Law of Non-Contradiction, which states that something cannot be and not be at the same time.
So, for example, one thing many people love is to imagine what the world would be like if things were different. Different in what way? More just, more egalitarian, etc. But can the world be like that? Or is all people want a comforting thought? For Rand, what matters is that the world is as it is, and there’s no point in running away from it, no point in trying to say that things are different from what our eyes tell them they are. Another example: for Rand, humankind’s survival tool is reason. Reason is an instrument that allows humans to understand things and change them to their liking. But if you say that reason is precarious, and that what matters most is what you feel, your feelings, our friend will say that our feelings are incapable of creating absolutely nothing; they only serve to delude or comfort us about our inability. It’s not that she rejects feelings altogether; it’s that she always puts reason first. And if we compare the product of reason, a reasoning that leads to a conclusion any rational being can reach, like: those who work want to earn something in return, so if they don’t receive it, their work will have been in vain. This is reasoning anyone can use. Now, saying, “I think my work will never lead me anywhere, that I work for nothing,” isn’t reasoning; it’s an expression of a feeling, which has no power to convince, much less to change reality. Because reason dictates that everything, absolutely everything human beings do, has a purpose, a purpose, and a result. So, if your work doesn’t bring you any return, logically, you should look for something else, not just sit around complaining.
This relentless logic of objectivism, this idea that A is A and not B—that is, everything is what it is, without room for interpretation, at least not for interpretations that matter—is taken to its ultimate consequences within the story developed in the book “Atlas Shrugged,” and now I’ll talk a little about it. (…)”