From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Objectivism/Existence
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:42:59 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech (VPI & SU)

I had written:
	Stephen Grossman and/or Ayn Rand confuse (1) what we can
	conceive exists, with (2) what actually exists.
	[...]
	Even if existence exists, what then do we know?  It includes
	everything you can think of -- but much of that will never exist
	outside the confines of your imagination: the thought of a
	thing may exist, but the thing itself may not.

In article <1992Aug20.204747.19825@cis.umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen Grossman) writes:
[sifting through to the relevant statements]
> 	meta-every time I mention something, Kranaowski jumps past meta into
> episte and wonders about the relation of "something" to existence. That is 
> fine and ok but only episte. Move up to the meta. level where aman can
> breathethat clean stuff.
[...] 
> This is a serious technical issue. Things exist. Please make a temporary 
> attempt to transcend episte for meta. Or, if you don't value existence then

     It is not a matter of what I value at this point.  Since it is
indeed a technical issue, I would like you to explicitly tell me how you
define the words "metaphyics" and "epistemology," or else I will never
know what you mean.  I define
	Metaphysics = the science of what is; the object of a
		philosopher's study.
	Epistemology = the science of what one knows or can know;
		philosophy of the philosopher himself as subject.
If anyone else has alternative definitions, I'd be curious to hear them,
although I wouldn't want to rekindle the chaos named "Metaphysics vs.
Mysticism," which I could not bear after the millionth post.

     The way I understand the words, the only one skipping past
metaphysics is the objectivist.  There may be an objective reality, but
that is not an issue to solve with the one statement, "Existence exists."
That should be the _conclusion_ of a lengthy treatise, a volume of
metaphysical argument; not an axiom.  For the purpose of further
argument it may be useful to assume as given that existence exists, but
bearing in mind that premise is an _assumption_ without proof.  The
objectivist, apparently, does not bear this in mind.  With my
definitions, the words I'd said before can be restated: "Stephen
Grossman and/or Ayn Rand confuse (1) epistemology with (2) metaphysics,"
despite that I am already accused of the same.

Stephen Grossman also wrote:
> 	episte-objectivity is the alternative to dogma and skepticism.
> concerns exist. They exist. whatever their limit or context, they exist.
> Your perspective exists just as much as the object of your perspective. 

     Naturally the objectivist seems uninterested in epistemology.  "Of
course your ideas exist," says my current impression of a Randian, "and
it is also numbingly obvious that everyone's concerns exist and have
their limits.  Let's talk about something more interesting."  After all,
that concerns the perspective of the _subject_, which is subjective.  So
he impatiently waits for the rest of us dullards to follow him to the
objects of existence, which so plainly lie before us.  But what of my
earlier statement that "the thought of a thing may exist, but the thing
itself may not"?  As I said in my previous post,
	...objectivism states: "If you can think it exists, it surely
	must exist."  "It" itself, not merely the *thought* of "it."
How do you make this leap, Stephen, from the thought of a thing, to the 
thing itself?

     So I don't buy it.  I'm not convinced that humans have the
capacity to truly perceive the objects of existence.  Metaphysics is
exciting, and metaphysics is enlightening, but metaphysics is also just
speculation.  (IMHO, of course.  And MHO is flexible.)  I do not think
we _can_ "transcend epistemology for metaphysics," because we are
intrinsically hamstrung by epistemology.  We are the subjects, and
cannot reach the objects.

     I decided to write this post because I still had more to understand
regarding your position.  So I request, Stephen, that you please reread
your previous posts and avoid saying the same things you have already
said many times, because it will not help me understand further.  Please 
give me your definitions of "metaphysics" and "epistemology," answer my 
question from last time (I had asked, "How do you know when you are 
connected to objective reality," although if "know" is inappropriate, 
please tell me why), and please feel free to quote me with ">"s so you 
can respond to individual remarks. 

---
Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta