humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Mar 26, 11:00 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> On Mar 26, 12:19 pm, Mark N wrote:
>
> > Is being a unit the same thing as being able to manifest as a unit?
>
> I'm not sure what it means to be able to manifest as a unit.

That's sad. Maybe a couple of examples might help.

"That table over there manifests as a unit."

"The gravitational force between two objects does not
manifest as a unit."

Does that help you understand "what it means to be able to
manifest as a unit."? I suppose it could be that even the
gravitational forces could manifest as a unit to some other
being, but it doesn't to humans. Gravity could manifest as
vision to another being also, but it doesn't to humans.

The gravity--whatever the hell it is in the contextless absolute
of the universe--is still whatever the hell it is. Can't you get
that YET?


> > Can
> > units exist without consciousness?
>
> I think so.

Like I said, it's the Revolving Door Theory.


> Certainly, something can exist without consciousness, and
> it's certainly not impossible that that thing could consist of units.
> If the Greeks were right that the universe consisted of indivisible
> atoms with precise positions in continuous times, then those atoms
> would have been units that could exist apart from consciousness.
>
> I could think of a way that the universe could be such that it
> contains no units without consciousness. That would require that the
> universe be perfectly continuous. I suppose then perhaps "all that
> exists" would still be a unit. This seems an awful lot like naval-
> gazing to me though.

This is not to argue; this is to clarify:

In my lingo, the universe IS a unit, a special one that includes
everything that exists. As we don't use the concept to
conceptualize it that way generally, though, it's a poor way of
describing the universe. Generally, we reserve the concept for
those units that are /within/, or better IMO "a part of" that "unit"
which is all that exists.

IOW the universe is the one unit that doesn't imply anything
that's not it, and so is poorly referenced as such. Still, if
"unit" means "something of existence taken as one," then
the universe does technically qualify. If "unit" means,
"something of existence taken as one with the implication
that there's something that's not the unit," then the universe
doesn't qualify. This is a definitional matter, so when I say
"The universe IS a unit," I am intimating which definition I use.


> > What the heck is a unit, anyway?
>
> A unit is anything that can have properties. A "unit" is the thing a
> property is a property of.

Uh huh. Perhaps you can give us an example of an
existent that doesn't have properties, so that we may
contrast it with these sorts of existents (units) that do?
That's Question #1.

Does gravity have properties? Is gravity a unit?
That's Questions 2 and 3. Please answer all three.


jk