Harrison Danneskjold Posted August 13, 2014 Report Share Posted August 13, 2014 But a sound, touch, scent is a concrete existent no different than a photon on the retina. This sounds like you're saying that sensations are entities, which would be wrong. For example, the entity one might call "your face" is not exclusively defined by it's visual appearance; it also has many other attributes which are just as central to its identity (just as you observed). One couldn't even say that my perception (including all five senses) of your face defines what it is, because that would mean that it doesn't exist except when I perceive it. Speaking ontologically, an entity must be something more than that. I realize that you very specifically typed "existent" instead of "entity", which would include attributes, which would include sensible qualities. I usually try not to point out the obvious, but it might benefit anyone who may not have digested your post as thoroughly. On what basis do you claim that there are not simple substances who's structures do not change anyway? You're asking for proof of a negative; the same could be said of the existence of unicorns on Neptune. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted August 14, 2014 Report Share Posted August 14, 2014 I haven't forgotten this thread but I need some time to respond to SL and Harrison further. Will try to do so tonight. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 Unfortunately the word "fact" (and necessarily the accepted concept(s) represented by the word "fact") is somewhat problematic as it includes two completely different types of things: Merrian-Webster: Fact: : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence : a true piece of information there are also 5 further meanings some of which refer to knowledge (information, truth of statements) some of which refer to reality/existence (actual occurrence, something that has actual existence) It would appear to me that any discussion regarding the boundaries of metaphysics and epistemology should avoid the use of such a schizophrenic term altogether or limit its use to only one of the above types of meanings, or be qualified in every case of its usage as either referring to information, etc. or reality etc. PS: When the word "fact" is used in the context regarding reality it can be somewhat superfluous. We can simply say "something Is", also saying it is a "fact" adds nothing. SL, Isn't that what I have don't here? (differentiated between man-made facts and metaphysically given facts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted August 16, 2014 Report Share Posted August 16, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry; I wasn't aware that the existence of colorblind people on Earth would pose some significant challenge to Oist epistemology. ---Edit: "Whether anything is ever truly universal" implies that the sum of everything is fair game. Should read "whether any particular thing is truly universal." And if it's still the "antithesis" of Objectivist epistemology, given that caveat, then I would truly appreciate it if you would explain why. Harrison, I didn't quote your " * " comment in my response but your " ** " comment. I wasn't responding to the color blind statement but to the second one that said, "Whether anything is ever truly universal". Your caveat above would have been a different thing. The previous iteration would make axioms superfluous because knowledge of axioms do exactly that. ( state what is true in all context, irreducibly) Edit: Harrison said: You're asking for proof of a negative; the same could be said of the existence of unicorns on Neptune. As stated, your right. I should have asked what he thought was wrong with the evidence-model for simple substances. Edited August 16, 2014 by Plasmatic Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted August 18, 2014 Report Share Posted August 18, 2014 (edited) SL, Isn't that what I have don't here? (differentiated between man-made facts and metaphysically given facts) I don't know if you can discuss/differentiate 1) man-made facts, 2) metaphysically given facts without addressing exactly what is meant by "facts" first i.e. independently of the type. Otherwise I believe there are big hurdles to clear and precise communication and argumentation. Once a groundwork is laid for what exactly you mean by a "fact" you can further differentiate between certain kinds. Edited August 18, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted August 25, 2014 Report Share Posted August 25, 2014 What happened here? This thread sort of petered out without any real take-away... I assume Euoil and Plasmatic did not simply walk away from a disagreement... was it resolved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eiuol Posted August 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 25, 2014 I did just walk away from it. It wasn't really going anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted August 25, 2014 Report Share Posted August 25, 2014 What happened here? This thread sort of petered out without any real take-away... "You wouldn't be so surprised if you had asked what reason there was for [it]." -Ellsworth Toohey I don't think there ever was a real argument to be had here. If there is something to be taken away, I guess it would be not to post in haste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.