humanities.philosophy.objectivism

David Schwartz wrote:

> To make the "size of the Sun" independent of consciousness, you have
> to make the property "part of the Sun" independent of consciousness
> (because size is the boundary around all parts). Maybe that can be
> done, but it's not immediately apparent to me how. It's not clear to
> me in what sense the size of an object exists if the rule to determine
> what is and isn't part of it does not exist in any meaningful sense.

What does it mean for a rule to exist in a meaningful sense? Do you mean
that the rule has to have been stated by someone? Do you think that it's
necessary for a rule (or definition) to have been stated by someone, in
order for there to be an objective matter of fact about whether or not
something conforms to that rule (or definition)? If so, why?

Saying that something conforms to a particular rule is really just a
convenient way of making a statement about that thing's objective
properties, with the reference to the rule functioning as a kind of
shorthand device. If the rule had never been formulated, the actual
assertion that one is making about the thing by saying that it conforms
to the rule wouldn't be any less true.

Mark