humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 18, 3:36 pm, Fred Weiss wrote:

> What you don't seem to grasp is that those very questions presuppose a
> knowledge you are denying we can have. You are in fact in an infinite
> regress of such questions with no end in sight, i.e. nothing that can
> be called knowledge.

Your entire reply against rests on the straw man you keep repeating. I
do not deny that we have this knowledge, I deny that the knowledge is
independent of consciousness.

You could argue that my infinite regress means that nothing can be
called knowledge independent of consciousness. That would at least not
rest on a complete deliberate misunderstanding of my position.

That the Moon has properties X and Y is dependent upon many things,
including what we do or don't consider part of the moon.

Suppose, in the future, we realize that the Earth has a halo composed
of particles we previously couldn't detect, and we decide that our
decision to not consider them part of the Earth was an error. In fact,
the Earth should include these particles and is now larger than the
Sun. Will you still insist "the Earth is larger than the Moon" is
independent of our inability to detect those particles and properly
determine what is and isn't part of the Earth?

DS