humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 12, 4:40 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> Jim Klein wrote:
> > > The hidden assumption is that the size of a defined region of space is
> > > part of its nature.
> > The size of a defined region IS part of its nature! Sheesh.
>
> Just like having a precise position at every instant is part of the
> nature of a particle? Just like being indivisible is part of the
> nature of an atom? You are trying to do the one thing you cannot do
> with scientific conclusions -- separate them from the evidence that
> justifies them.

von answered this perfectly: "But do you claim to know the
construction,
or its object?"

If the former, then I'm not interested. There is no shortage of
discussions on the 'net about the scientific method and so on.

If the latter, then you are explicitly saying that the nature of the
object rests upon the "construction" or method by which we
know it. Either that, or you are denying that the object has any
nature at all, absent our identification.

They're both nearly insane and your position seems a little
closer to the second alternative. It's hard to measure degrees
of absurdity on this, but I think I'd choose that one as even
more absurd.


> > >The size of a defined region of space is dependent
> > > on how that region is defined.
> > Fine, David, but once it's defined, its size does NOT depend
> > on the consciousness that defined it. Just say, "That's right,"
> > and be done with it.
>
> If a process requires X, its results clearly depend on X.

von's statement addresses this perfectly as well: "But do you
claim to know the construction, or its object?" I even agree
with you, some would say to an insane degree, that the
delineation, or construction, of an individual object is all
about the process. Without that process (consciousness),
nothing delineates something from everything else.

But it's quite a leap from that to the claim that whatever
was delineated, has no nature. Expanded, this would be
the claim that nothing has any nature, perhaps even the
universe itself, except for our recognition of that nature.

I think there might even be ways to defend such an
outrageous claim somewhat sensibly, and maybe you'd
be the guy to do it. But irrespective of that, it's still the
case that Rand's Objectivism completely rejects such
claims, and so Betsy--and anyone else who's bought
into such bullshit--should not go around pretending that
they have an understanding of Rand's Objectivism.

I still haven't figured out a more fundamental point to
Rand's Objectivism, so I'm still curious why so-called
"Orthodox Objectivists" don't make a big deal of this.


jk