> "David G. McDivitt" wrote:
> >
> > Reality is a logical construct having implied context and
> significance.
> > People are either in sync on that level or they are not.
> When people are
> > not in sync should we beat them and force them to be? Do
> their thoughts
> > have any validity at all? Yes. Their thoughts have validity
> to them just
> > as our thoughts have validity to each of us individually.
> >
> > There is no reality unless there is authority to enforce it whether
> > intellectually, socially, morally, or scientifically. Use of reality
> > statements in a debate, rather than recital of logical premises to
> > support an opinion, are in effect calls for authority, only, and non
> > intellectual.
Is the statement "Reality is subjective" objective? :) Also, is the
authority making the claim capable of "enforcing" it?
Seriously, this is based on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and was
debunked quite well by Leonard Peikoff (based off Rand's work). Heres an
intro on the argument.
http://www.olist.com/essays/text/ioe1/09.html
Heres a taste
<snip>
Peikoff presents several features of the distinction between the two types
of propositions, which I'll summarize.
a. To deny an analytic truth is to endorse a self-contradiction, but to deny
a synthetic truth is merely to endorse a falsehood.
b. Analytic truths are necessary, they could not have been otherwise.
Synthetic truths, by contrast, are contingent. States of affairs that
contradict those described by synthetic truths are conceivable, or
imaginable, or logically possible.
c. Analytic truths are independent of experience. Synthetic truths depend on
experience, they must be established by reference to specific facts.
d. Analytic truths provide no information about reality, they follow from
mere linguistic convention. Synthetic truths do provide information about
reality, and are therefore unprovable.
<snip>
Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT