Not at all mate, just trying to get this back on it's original track.
On 17 Sep, 14:11, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Is that my homework assignment?
>
> On Sep 17, 8:06 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Okay well lets halt it there and 'll ask again what are some of these
> > objective facts that Rand wants us to be concerned with?
>
> > On 17 Sep, 02:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > That was very simply put Don, and that's a fact!
>
> > > On Sep 16, 2:06 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > I understand that some people refuse to accept certain facts. I also
> > > > understand that some people accept as fact what is, in fact, no such
> > > > thing. I don't see how this makes facts subjective. Facts are facts.
> > > > Either something is true or it isn't. Whether or not somebody
> > > > believes it has nothing to do with it. I'm on Slips side of this
> > > > coin.
>
> > > > dj
>
> > > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand wants
> > > > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really are.
> > > > > <<Lee Sep 16, 9:57 am
>
> > > > > .........facts can be subjective as well as objective<<Lee Sep 16,
> > > > > 10:17 am
>
> > > > > On Sep 16, 10:21 am, "[email protected]"
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > >> Umm settles what?
>
> > > > >> Ohh and you're welcome!
>
> > > > >> On 16 Sep, 16:17, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective,
> > > > >> > that
> > > > >> > indeed both kinds exist. <Lee
>
> > > > >> > OK! Well I guess that settles it. Thanks mate!
>
> > > > >> > On Sep 16, 9:57 am, "[email protected]"
> > > > >> > <[email protected]>
> > > > >> > wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > Bwahahahah ohh Slip, you slay me mate honestly.
>
> > > > >> > > Listen very carefully sir, I'll say it again.
>
> > > > >> > > I claim only that facts can be subjective as well as objective,
> > > > >> > > that
> > > > >> > > indeed both kinds exist.
>
> > > > >> > > The point? Or why do I make this disctinction?
>
> > > > >> > > The point is Rand wants us to deal in objectivity, well when we
> > > > >> > > are
> > > > >> > > clear what is objective and what is subjective then perhaps we
> > > > >> > > can
> > > > >> > > move forward.
>
> > > > >> > > So please, sir, give me a few of these objective facts that Rand
> > > > >> > > wants
> > > > >> > > us to bear in mind, and we'll see just how objective they really
> > > > >> > > are.
>
> > > > >> > > On 16 Sep, 15:46, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > >> > > > Obviously, according to your expressions, if fact is
> > > > >> > > > disputable,
> > > > >> > > > mutable through human interpretation and perception then there
> > > > >> > > > are no
> > > > >> > > > facts.
>
> > > > >> > > > So shall we begin to dispel some well known facts as myths?
>
> > > > >> > > > If I stick my hand in "boiling water" it is not a "fact" that
> > > > >> > > > my hand
> > > > >> > > > will get scalded but just a figment of my imagination, the
> > > > >> > > > imagination
> > > > >> > > > that I perceive to "exist".
>
> > > > >> > > > The sun that I see in the sky may not really be there but only
> > > > >> > > > exists
> > > > >> > > > as a result of human perceptions of...... "what a sun is as
> > > > >> > > > well as
> > > > >> > > > how it appears to arise, cross the heavens and then hide
> > > > >> > > > beneath the
> > > > >> > > > earth, or, the concept of the earth rotating allowing the above
> > > > >> > > > appearances to occur..."
>
> > > > >> > > > If we attribute everything to "human thought" then the whole
> > > > >> > > > of the
> > > > >> > > > conversation is moot, the interview with Ayn Rand was just a
> > > > >> > > > dream.
> > > > >> > > > It is not a fact that anything exists, in "nano thought".
>
> > > > >> > > > Note: The above post may not exist for some.
>
> > > > >> > > > BUT WAIT!! THERE'S MORE!!
>
> > > > >> > > > From the Eternity thread an excerpt from the much revered
> > > > >> > > > Justintruth.......................quotes added to "Fact" for
> > > > >> > > > your
> > > > >> > > > convenience.
>
> > > > >> > > > Justintruth
> > > > >> > > > View profile
> > > > >> > > > Here is what I have been able to get from reading: Consider
> > > > >> > > > the "fact"
> > > > >> > > > that 1+1=2. Given the normal meaning of "1" and "+ "add "2"
> > > > >> > > > this fact
> > > > >> > > > is true. But this "fact" never happened. It is an eternal
> > > > >> > > > truth.
> > > > >> > > > Eternality is the place of meaning - where meaning is. The
> > > > >> > > > previous
> > > > >> > > > sentence being more correct when one understands that "place"
> > > > >> > > > and
> > > > >> > > > "where" are not to be interpreted spatially. Eternality is the
> > > > >> > > > "fact"
> > > > >> > > > of the being of meaning or a reference to meaning being.
> > > > >> > > > Consider the
> > > > >> > > > "fact" that George Washington crossed the Delaware at Valley
> > > > >> > > > Forge.
> > > > >> > > > Now unlike the math that did happen in time but the "fact"
> > > > >> > > > that it
> > > > >> > > > happened is no longer temporal. The past is no longer
> > > > >> > > > happening. The
> > > > >> > > > past is now eternal and nothing can therefore change
> > > > >> > > > it. .....................
>
> > > > >> > > > From Pat....Consciousness thread...
>
> > > > >> > > > As I said, the "fact" that we exist in a continuum implies
> > > > >> > > > that the
> > > > >> > > > system is teleological. Thus the need for our 'whys' to be
> > > > >> > > > answered.
> > > > >> > > > I fear, though, that most of the answers will elude us while
> > > > >> > > > we're
> > > > >> > > > incarnate.
>
> > > > >> > > > Yes, you too Orn........
>
> > > > >> > > > Yes too to the "fact" that one must adapt
> > > > >> > > > to an environment…knowing who they are with.
>
> > > > >> > > > But Wait! We also have unfortunate facts........
>
> > > > >> > > > Fran.........The ends justify the means thread.........
>
> > > > >> > > > The
> > > > >> > > > unfortunate "fact" is that, despite the question of legitimacy
> > > > >> > > > regarding
> > > > >> > > > Bush's first term
>
> > > > >> > > > Care to rephrase anyone? OK so are we just tossing about the
> > > > >> > > > word
> > > > >> > > > "fact", should we remove it from our language being that it
> > > > >> > > > may not
> > > > >> > > > even exist?
>
> > > > >> > > > Fact is, oops did I say fact?, if we cannot conclude that fact
> > > > >> > > > exists
> > > > >> > > > then we are in a quandary, it's tautological.
>
> > > > >> > > > Fact is fact is not fact is fact.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
