humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Apr 8, 1:48 pm, Malrassic Park wrote:

> >I don't know what you want. You've asked the same question at least
> >four times and gotten the same answer about four times. The bitterness
> >is the result of the interaction between the object and the sense of
> >taste. From the fact that X tastes bitter to Y, we learn something
> >about X and something about Y. We can sometimes separate them,
> >sometimes not.

> What I want is to relate this to the discussion of the
> primary-secondary quality distinction in the ITOE appendix.

There is only a distinction in the sense that something in the object
accounts for it tasting bitter, and it tastes bitter.

> Now if
> qualities such as color and bitterness are the result of the
> interaction between the object and the senses, are length and width
> the result of the same interaction?

It is just a matter of definition. By "taste" do you mean "what in the
object accounts for its taste" or do you mean "the subjective tasting
experience a person gets when they taste it". Similarly, by "length"
do you mean "what in the object accounts for it measuring to a certain
length" or do you mean "the sense of length a conscious person gets
when they measure it".

> If not, then why did Rand dismiss
> the distinction being made between qualities which are dependent on
> this interaction and qualities which are not?

Because they are all equally dependent in the sense that the result to
a conscious measurer depends both on the object and the measurement
process and they are equally independent in the sense that there are
objective facts about the object that account for the end result (in
combination with objective facts about the senses used).

We are always presented with combined results that tell us something
about the thing we are perceiving and something about how we perceive.
We almost always separate them to at least some extent and almost
never separate them completely.

DS