We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our [ creation (viz. what they might become to us) ]. Screwdrivers are products of our manufacture. — creativesoul
A screwdriver is existentially dependent upon humans.
Agree?
— creativesoul
How would we prove this?
— Merkwurdichliebe
If one cannot simply agree that screwdrivers are human creations and all human creations are existentially dependent upon begin created by a human, then there's not much more I can say to such a skeptic. — creativesoul
All we need to do is clarify what is meant by "things can exist in their entirety prior to our discovery of them". — Merkwurdichliebe
We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our [[b]creation of what they might become to us[/b]]. — creativesoul
That something can exist in its entirety prior to human contact. — Merkwurdichliebe
that's what makes you a better philosopher than I. — Merkwurdichliebe
Upon what ground would one doubt that? — creativesoul
In other words, what's the difference between an undiscovered thing, and a discovered thing? — Merkwurdichliebe
...if the identity of all things is reducible to human creation, and all human creation is existentially dependent upon being created by a human, then existence prior to human contact is unthinkable. — Merkwurdichliebe
The identity of all things is existentially dependent upon being created by a human. <----- that follows.
I have no issue with that. — creativesoul
They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not.We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our discovery. Screwdrivers are products of our own manufacture. — creativesoul
They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not.
The sculpture inside the rock exists, even if you don't carve it out. — Shamshir
Here's a simple proposition.I might agree, while I do incline towards a rejection of "man as the measure of all things", for argument's sake, I would have to be very clear about what we are talking about by identity to settle on one side or the other. — Merkwurdichliebe
Someone who has only ever written with a pen, sees it as a writing implement.
Someone who has only ever been stabbed with a pen, sees it as a dangerous weapon.
It's the same pen - but it looks different from each side, just like how your back looks different from your front. — Shamshir
They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not. — Shamshir
Here's a simple proposition.
Someone who has only ever written with a pen, sees it as a writing implement.
Someone who has only ever been stabbed with a pen, sees it as a dangerous weapon.
It's the same pen - but it looks different from each side, just like how your back looks different from your front. — Shamshir
I think we are working with two terms, existence and identity. I am confounding them here.
Let me clarify. Existence is something that is independent of identity. Identity is dependent on existence. — Merkwurdichliebe
Pens are not existentially dependent on humans.Pens are existentially dependent upon humans. — creativesoul
It does, when the referent is a part of your own perspective.Different uses for the same referent does not change the referent. — creativesoul
Pens are not existentially dependent on humans.
And you can't prove there isn't a world where pens exist but humans don't, and you can't prove it isn't possible - if you want to go that route. — Shamshir
It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul
It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world.
— creativesoul
Then pens didn't exist in their entirety prior to their invention. — Merkwurdichliebe
Correct. Pens didn't exist prior to their invention.
One who is unfamiliar with a pen can discover one though. They do exist in their entirety prior to their discovery. — creativesoul
The invention of pens is no different from the discovery of pens.It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul
Correct. Pens didn't exist prior to their invention.
One who is unfamiliar with a pen can discover one though. They do exist in their entirety prior to their discovery.
— creativesoul
That is a categorical error of some kind or another. — Merkwurdichliebe
In addition, it also notes that some things that are existentially dependent upon humans can be discovered by another human at a later date. — creativesoul
They are existentially dependent upon humans. If there were never any humans, there would never have been any pens. In addition, it also notes that some things that are existentially dependent upon humans can be discovered b — creativesoul
it also notes that some things that are existentially dependent upon humans can be discovered by another human at a later date.
— creativesoul
That it awfully inferential, and requires major qualification. — Merkwurdichliebe
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.