27 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:
They are held by the device of concrete substitution in language.
I agree with what you said but I don’t know what your last sentence means exactly.
29 minutes ago, Plasmatic said:
I havent read this thread but I have brought this up many times here. Ms. Rand is referring to “exist” in the primary sense when she says “abstractions as such do not exist”.
Yes of course.
I assume the OP simply misunderstood the meaning.
That’s why I asked OP to clarify, but he/she has not returned.
On 9/14/2017 at 2:28 PM, Kenny Davis said:
Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete.
How can this be the case?
“they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists.” Seems to be saying that man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists, doesn’t exist.
This is so strange that feel like I’m missing something.
It’s just a matter of time before a post such as the following appears on Objectivism Online:
I was listening to a lecture Ayn Rand gave at the Ford Hall Forum, and at one point she said: “Two plus two equals four.” Huh? I can’t for the life of me understand what she could have meant by this. If you have two … and two … I’m sorry, where do you get “four” from that? If anything, you have 22. Someone please explain this to me as I am utterly confounded by this bizarre statement.
1 Like