humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Tue, 08 Apr 2008 13:58:27 -0700, David Schwartz
wrote:

>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.

We'll see...

>> 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".

Taste is dependent upon a sensing being sensing something, length is
not. Things have length whether anybody observes this fact or not, but
things do not have taste until a sensing being taste them.

Is this distinction so important that Rand had to jiggle around like a
belly-dancing hippopotamus in an effort to avoid it? I don't think so,
do you?

>> 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).

Nothing is being measured in this problem.

>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.

The length or width of an object exists in itself, it is
mind-independent.

--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge

...wake the fuck up, you dumb and desperate commie
context dropping stupid knuckle-dragging...
ignorant cunt. - Michael Gordge