One Man's Thoughts

I was recently reading a book entitled “The Problems of Philosophy,” by Bertrand Russell. We will take one very small section of his writing and reply briefly. He posits that there are some things which many be known to exist outside of human experience. My position is, I believe in the theoretical existence of things outside of human experience. There is a level of nuance between fact and theory in this vein of thought. Let me try to explain.

One could say it is a fact that I believe in the theoretical existence of things outside of human experience. This does not mean that I take it as factual that things may exist outside of human experience. It is theory. It is possibility. It is a fact that I believe in theory. It is a fact that I believe in possibility. Have I indeed not just said as much? It is fact. But is it also a fact that any other human will read these words? No, it is only theoretical—a mere possibility. And yet the words and thus also, the idea(s) exist. So then, does this prove Mr. Russell’s argument? I think not.

Ideas do not exist on the same plane as objects with physical qualities. A table (an object used by the author in the first chapter of his work) is only theoretical until the idea of a table is put into action. When that happens it then becomes actualized. We can then say that before something has become actualized it is still theory. Thus, when I say I believe in the theoretical existence of things outside of human experience, I am offering a belief that future ideas of the mind may move from the realm of theory and into a new land of actualization, which humanity may then experience.

One could argue that an individual could experience the actualization of my thoughts through hearing. But if that is the case, that would mean fact is based upon the comprehension of another being that has similar mental faculty as my own, in this case, the ability to form sounds into words that have meaning to a listener. This is false thinking, as there are many things one may not comprehend and yet it does not ‘un-make’ the thing that is incomprehensible to that individual within the thought of the other. The thing still exists, at least in theory. Let us remember that the word ‘actualize’ means “to bring into reality.”

There is a saying that goes like this, “Do not speak that into existence.” But surely this is fallacious reasoning. If a being with a mind is able to make a theoretical thing a factual reality by simply uttering noises as words, and those words have meaning, it is not the case that such words have become reality. They have only come to have meaning through the perception of the one hearing and comprehending what the other is saying.

Thus, what one believes to be factual per their perception may still be theoretical existence only, for those that have not experienced the words for themselves. This leads one to wonder if the faculty of perception alone is required to move a thing from theory and into a state of being factual. What happens when there are two or more competing perceptions? Has not fact been diluted once more into mere theory? We are not talking here about something that could be considered as right or wrong. This is not a case of “he said, she said.” We are discussing whether or not something may exist by words alone, or if something that is theory may become fact through the process of human experience. Is hearing the measure by which a thing has been experienced to the degree that is becomes ‘true,’ or ‘real,’ or is there more that is needed to ‘push’ theory over the edge so that it becomes fact?  

Mr. Russell offers that a thing may exist without any human experience of the thing whatsoever. As far as my experience is concerned, I am willing to accept his view as lingering within the space of what is possible, even though I do not accept it as fact.