humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 18, 1:22 pm, Jim Klein wrote:

> On Mar 18, 5:11 am, David Schwartz wrote:

> > Length of extent objects requires the existence of extent objects.

> Do extent objects exist?

Of course.

> >You
> > will not find any extent objects in the absence of consciousness,

> There is no finding in the absence of consciousness, period.

Absolutely.

> So do extent objects exist?

Yes.

> > just a plenum.

> Right. So do extent objects exist?

Yes, so long as there are consciousnesses to model things that way.

> > That my desk is a "unit" with extent properties like
> > "length" is a cognitive model.

> Okay. So do extent objects exist?

Yes.

> >The "length of my desk" is a property
> > that makes sense only within this model.

> If even that! So do extent objects exist?

Yes.

> > You cannot measure the length of my desk without understanding the
> > model that tells you what to measure and what not to.

> Really? Most carpenters study epistemology?

Of course they do. Otherwise they wouldn't even know what was part of
a desk and what wasn't.

> I tell you this...tell any carpenters in my neck of the woods
> that they're fools if they think they're really measuring
> something, and you'll have a boatload of trouble on
> your hands.
>
> They're right; you're wrong. They are measuring a
> part of that plenum, David, one that luckily lends itself
> to measurement.

I agree.

> I mean, take it as lucky if you must; some take it as a
> manifestation of God's good sense. Take it any ol'
> way you want, but please for crissakes stop implying
> that it's not really measurement that's going on.
>
> And whatever you do, answer the damn question:

> Do extent objects exist? [Or did Rand misname her
> philosophy, and it should've been Plenumivism?]

Yes, extent objects exist. They are a model conscious beings use to
understand the plenum, just like indivisible atoms or particles with
precise positions at precise times.

> I'm laying dollars to doughnuts here...did you come
> up with this POV after reading OPAR, or before? I
> already know you're not an ARIan, but I'd still
> be grateful for an answer. TIA.

Long after. It's an outgrowth from my defense of science from attacks
that operate by cutting scientific conclusions off from the evidence
that supports them.

Scientific conclusions are, and remain, valid so long as they remain
attached to the evidence that supports them. "I believe X because of
evidence Y" is science. "X" is not.

DS