humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 27, 2:43 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> On Mar 27, 11:36 am, Jim Klein wrote:
>
> I honestly do not see how you can reconcile this:
>
> > It would be, I suppose, but it doesn't matter here. David is
> > correct that in the absence of consciousness, it doesn't
> > make sense to speak of the universe to be comprised of
> > separate, distinct units.
>
> With this:
>
> > And of course some things--like the pleasantness
> > of a sunny day, or the disgrace of post-mortem
> > Peikovianism--do actually, literally depend upon
> > consciousness for the nature of their existence.
>
> > Some things are like that, and some things aren't.
> > The size of the Sun and Earth, or the existence of
> > some pulsar a zillion light years way, are not.
>
> How can you talk about the size of the Sun without speaking of the
> universe as comprised of distinct units?

The same way cavemen could talk about the Sun
without knowing anything of atoms, gasses or
nuclear reactions...with phonemically denoted concepts.

That there is a contextless absolute which likely has
the nature of a plenum, does not imply that the Sun
doesn't really exist. Indeed...if you think about it for
just a moment, no statement can truthfully imply
that the Sun doesn't really exist.

There is something of the universe, which for
whatever causes and effects manifests as the
Sun to consciousnesses such as ours. This much
we know; all the details we don't. This is what it
means to say, "The Sun exists."

Of course, you won't even admit that we know this much!


> How can the Sun have a size
> if it's not a distinct unit?

The same way you do. That's why we can take a
measuring tape to your length. Why...how would
you have it, that it's a lucky break two measuring
tapes will reveal the same length?

Oops...that's arguing. I mean to say, "The
same way you do. That's why we can take a
measuring tape to your ass."


jk