humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 24, 5:03 pm, Jim Klein wrote:

> That's because it's NOT THE THING ITSELF. You are saying
> that how the thing itself is, rests upon the model. That's
> such a farcical assertion, that it begs no reasonable
> response.

Again, this is a ridiculous straw man. I've pointed this out many
times, and you can choose to either get it or not.

Suppose we choose to model an electron as a particle with a precise
position at every instant in time. Would you argue that this means the
electron itself must have a precise position at every instant in time?

Suppose we choose to model oil as composed of indivisible atoms. Would
you argue this means that oil must actually be composed of indivisible
atoms?

We choose to model the things we currently consider "the Sun" as an
object that can have a size. This does not mean those things
themselves must be an object that has a size.

The question is not about whether the things themselves change (they
don't), it's about what the things themselves are.

DS