humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 13, 6:22 pm, David Schwartz wrote:

> I want to point out one more thing. Epistemological existents, once
> created by mental processes, exist metaphysically.

I'm sure nobody here disagrees with that. Well, maybe Acar
since there's no telling what he believes.

The more important question for you is, "What about
non-epistemological existents?" Do THOSE exist
metaphysically IYO? You say yes, but you argue no.


> Take a truth like
> "four is greater than two".

You get off-track because you insist on picking weird
examples, just like "David Schwartz exists, as Jim
Klein conceives him." Somehow, the Sun doesn't
exist as Jim Klein conceives it. Or "perhaps" doesn't,
or who the hell knows what else. But David Schwartz
DOESN'T perhaps not exist as Jim Klein conceives him.
I'd love to see you make sense of all that.

What...you must think there's always only one person
in the Hall of Mirrors!


> The concepts of "four" and "two" and the
> numerical concept of "greater" are concepts that are mind-dependent.
> They cannot exists without minds to hold them.

That's so, but you ignore WHY that's so. Numbers have no
direct class of referents like most concepts (table, chair,
Sun, galaxy, etc.) Call them "second-level" or something,
but understand that they reference OTHER conceptualized
collections. IOW their referents aren't the direct instances,
but a grouping of instances, each of which had to be
identified as similar based on some other conceptual
criteria. Look as hard as you want, but you won't find any
"twos" out there, but you will find tables and chairs.

And yes, I know Rand wouldn't consider a concept
in the first place, just like proper nouns. That's her error
IMO; a concept should be that which results from
conceptualization.

Lastly, get it through your thick skull that NO concepts
exist without conceptualization, and that this is no
great or relevant discovery. And what it especially
isn't, is anything that has to do with the referents of
our concepts, with the exception of epistemological
referents.


> But once the concepts of "four", "two" and "numerically greater"
> exist, it is a metaphysical fact that the concept "four" has the
> property "numerically greater" than "two".

Yes but the metaphysical fact being identified is that four
of something will be more than two of it, by double.

You just want to keep it all epistemological to pursue your
other silliness that everything conceptualized is conceptual.

You say that's not what you're doing, but it's exactly
what you're doing. That's why you don't think the
Sun is larger than the Earth until they're conceptualized.


> So metaphysical facts can be mind-dependent.

Yes, but only when the referents are epistemological
existents. Otherwise, metaphysical FACTS are NOT
mind-dependent. This is absolutely primary to any
sort of objectivist approach.


> Similarly, once I
> conceptualize "Sun", "Earth", and "physically larger", it is a
> metaphysical fact that the Sun is larger than the Earth.

Uh...no, David. Let me make that clearer--NO, DAVID!!

It's a metaphysical fact that the Sun is larger than the
Earth before, during and after conceptualization...even
absent conceptualization.

ALL facts are like that, with the sole exception of facts that
are directly concerning directly epistemological existents.

Don't you see? Even my claim is in error because facts
don't "concern" anything. They just are. "Existence is
identity; consciousness is identification." The Sun being
bigger than the Earth, just is. You can yap all you want
about not being able to get a handle on exactly what "the
Sun" is until after it's conceptualized, but it's still what it is,
even if it's never conceptualized.

IOW the FACT of the Sun's size relative to the Earth, if we
have a referent for each (which we do) has nothing--and I
mean absolutely, positively nothing--to do with the action
of our conceptualizing it.

This is just so utterly simple and basic.


> This does not make that fact mind-independent.

What makes it mind-independent is that it's not about
something of the mind. It's not about a number or love
or a feeling or a conclusion or a statement. It's about
the goddammed Sun, you stubborn ox.

Will you EVER get it? Don't answer that; it's rhetorical
and I believe I already know the answer. You just
carry on and I'll try not to interrupt any more. Sorry.


jk