humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 20, 1:54 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> In this context, correspondence is the link between the concept and
> what the concept refers to.

Interesting. So what's the difference between correspondence
and reference, to you?

And what is the nature of that "link," exactly?


> Correspondence is not all or nothing, and not all correspondences are
> equally good from a cognitive utility point of view.

Yeahbut you seem to be saying that they're all equal from
a metaphysical POV. Surely you acknowledge a difference
between your friend that exists and one that doesn't.

What is that difference, exactly? According to your theory,
neither friend "really exists" and our conceptualization is
just a model of something...except that we can't even call
it "something" since even that has no meaning except for
its "cognitive utility."

If a giant pulsar zapped all consciousness but not any objects,
are you actually saying there'd be no difference between the
two objects that had both been referred to as "friend"? Just
offhand, it seems like "One's there; one isn't," is a pretty big
difference. Indeed, even in the absence of the pulsar, I'd say
that's such a big difference, that it readily lends itself to
"cognitive utility." Not only do you disagree, but apparently
you disagree so much that you don't even have a concept to
distinguish the two!

In fact, if I take you literally, you don't even think there IS
a difference between the two. If that's wrong, then tell me
what the difference is. All you've got so far is, "We model one
that exists; we model the other that it doesn't." So I
understand the difference between the models. Now tell
me the difference between the two things we're modelling.

Me, I'd say, "One exists; one doesn't." But you can't say that
since that's just a /model/ distinction to you. It really reads,
"Our model says one exists; our model says the other doesn't."
That's fine and all, but how the hell do you distinguish between
OBJECTS that exist, versus that don't?

Plus, since you've
bought into this silliness, you also think they're equivalent in
that NEITHER "really" exists. You have taken a moderately
interesting point and extrapolated it beyond belief, not to
mention beyond sanity.

You've already explained how an object relies on our
consciousness for its existence. Does this go to
existence itself? Absent consciousness, is there also
no such thing as existence IYO?


jk