Avila Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 The point is really just that "red" can't exist without there being an actual thing that is red. It's odd word choice to say "accident", though what you seem to be saying is that "redness" is not *in* the object, and a classification of red is a conceptual activity rather than merely automatic and perceptual, all of which I'd agree with. Tangent, anyway... But perhaps relevant. It's not an odd word choice at all, as I am using the term as it is generally understood in philosophy (an attribute that is not essential to the essence of a thing). But you're right, this probably is just getting off on a tangent... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) It's not an odd word choice at all, as I am using the term as it is generally understood in philosophy (an attribute that is not essential to the essence of a thing). Although this is apparently a tangent, it should be noted here that in the Objectivist view, essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. We need to identify essences in order to properly form abstractions, but on a purely metaphysical level all of an objects characteristics are on par with all others. See here. And that's all I'll contribute to the tangent. Edited September 2, 2011 by Dante 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.