humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:36:52 -0700, Puppet_Sock
wrote:

>On Apr 9, 6:00 pm, Malrassic Park wrote:
>[snip]
>> I am "claiming"  that this is wrong, because there is only perception
>> experience, and a chemical is not a taste:
..
>And, in exactly the same way, a table is not a kinesthetic-
>sensation-of-my-arms-being-this-far-apart. And it's still a
>true but silly claim.

But in a previous example you indicated that you believe length is a
perception experience:

'We perceive length indirectly. We perceive it through such things
as the angle of our eyes, the focus "setting" of our eyes, the
kinesthesia sense that tells us where our body parts are located

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthesia

and so on. We interpret this as length.'

And now when you've said "my-arms-being-this-far-apart," that refers
to the length of objects such as tables as an object experience, not a
perception experience as in your original example.

It feels like I'm conversing with two different people here.

>But when I put a particular chemical compound on my
>tongue I will taste it as bitter. And when I put my hands
>at opp. ends of a table I will have that kin.-etc. sensation.
>And in each case, it is sensation of an object.
..
>In other words, it is objective.

The Prof's question had to do with just the primary-secondary
distinction, not with any objective-subjective distinction. "Prof. C:
I have a question about the primary-secondary quality distinction.
A quality like bitterness is not an attribute of an object, but it is
caused by an attribute."
--
How was chirch this morning? - Michael Gordge, Randroid

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