humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 3, 7:09 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> I don't think we disagree on any actual facts about percepts,
> knowledge, or cows for that matter. We just disagree on the precise
> definition scope of the terms "percept" and "knowledge". At least, I
> think this is the case.

Naw, you're just speaking a different language than me. I'm very
good at understanding almost all idiolects that are presented to
me...yours may indeed be the first English one that escapes me.

I can't even get off jump street with your lingo because, even with
your denials to the contrary, I don't see what you can take a fact
to be, if perhaps the sun doesn't exist and absent consciousness
nothing makes the sun a unit with size.

To me THOSE are facts and what makes them facts (as opposed
to truths in Objectivese) is that they are as they are, specifically
in the absence of any consciousness identifying them. This, even
as it's not the case that there's an absence of a consciousness
identifying them.

I'm nearly afraid to ask...what the hell is truth to you?

The fact that there IS a consciousness identifying is irrelevant in
our classification of their nature, minus that consciousness.

You're just caught up on the fact that there "necessarily" is
a consciousness identifying them. Well yeah...that's a main
point of A-S D, IMO. We're still just classifying and there's
nothing invalid about classifying the nature of an object
without consideration to the fact that it's being identified.

Indeed, many would say that's the whole point of an
objectivist approach. You throw it out wholesale by
denying that the nature of an object is really what we
classify it as, separate and apart from our classification
of it.

You've got yourself being as I conceive you, but maybe
the Sun not existing. Take a look at what you're saying.


jk