humanities.philosophy.objectivism

David Schwartz wrote:
> On Mar 29, 1:30 am, Reggie Perrin wrote:
>
>> As Gordon has noted, you are conflating two issues: the existence of the
>> referent and the ascription of properties to it. Atoms exist
>> independently of our minds. They existed when people thought they were
>> indivisible. They existed when there were no people to think about them
>> at all. That's just what it means to have a mind-independent existence.
>
> Had you been a Greek, you would have said that indivisible atoms exist
> independently of our minds. You would have been wrong.

Actually, no, I wouldn't have, assuming our current best theories are
true. The ancient Greeks thought that matter was ultimately composed of
indivisible particles which they called "atoms". Our current best theory
is that matter *is* ultimately composed of indivisible particles,
which we now call "elementary particles". The error came long after the
Greeks, when John Dalton first mistakenly identified the particles we
know now as atoms with the Greek "atom". (Of course, ancient Greek
atomists were wrong about many of the characteristics of atoms; it is
your misfortune to have chosen one of the few things they were right about).

>> [...]
>> Now, what happened in the case of atoms is that people mistakenly
>> ascribed the property "indivisible" to them. But it would not be
>> difficult to establish that e.g. Dalton and Rutherford were referring to
>> the same objects, objects which (of course) have a mind-independent
>> existence.
>
> Of course, they didn't know they were doing that. Perhaps we are
> mistakenly ascribing the property "having a size" to the Sun.

Perhaps we are. Wanna bet ;-)?

>> To choose a more homely example: let's say I have a picture
>> on my wall that I believe to be a Constable, but is actually a fake. Are
>> we to say that "Reggie's Constable" does not exist, or are we to say
>> that the painting exists and that I am mistaken about its origins? I
>> suggest that the latter is to be preferred.
>
> I agree, however, we are asking not about the existence of the
> painting but about some of its properties.

And I submit that the same is true of the "indivisible atoms" question.

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x