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

I would agree if you put it like that.

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". In other words, what's the difference between an undiscovered thing, and a discovered thing? Obviously, both exist in a peculiar way.

All we need to do is clarify what is meant by "things can exist in their entirety prior to our discovery of them". — Merkwurdichliebe

What part is unclear?

We discover things that exist in their entirety prior to our [[b]creation of what they might become to us[/b]]. — creativesoul

I would not put it that way.

That something can exist in its entirety prior to human contact.

That something can exist in its entirety prior to human contact. — Merkwurdichliebe

Upon what ground would one doubt that?

I know you wouldn't. And that's what makes you a better philosopher than I.

that's what makes you a better philosopher than I. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know about all that.

Upon what ground would one doubt that? — creativesoul

Well, if the identity-(existence) 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.

In other words, what's the difference between an undiscovered thing, and a discovered thing? — Merkwurdichliebe

It's discovery.

...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

What follows "then" is not a valid conclusion.

The identity of all things is existentially dependent upon being created by a human. <----- that follows.

I have no issue with that.

The identity of all things is existentially dependent upon being created by a human. <----- that follows.

I have no issue with that. — creativesoul

Then, a thing cannot exist in its entirety prior to its discovery, unless that thing exists as part of some type of universal understanding (logical architecture) that is inherent to all members of a species.

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.

@creativesoul

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.

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

If properties are inherent to their objects, we discover them. If not, they are created by the aesthetic application of intellect.

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

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.

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 it can be put more didactically. We discover things that exist in their entirety, prior to their identification. There are primary attributes that we cannot help but identify. But through the ingenious creativity of the human intellect, it is very easy to apply secondary attributes to a thing's identity.

Actually, nevermind... I retract this.

They're not. They're something that exists, regardless if humans figured it out or not. — Shamshir

Rubbish.

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

Rubbish. It's a pen. Pens can be put to use in different ways.

The same conflation of names with uses...

Pens are existentially dependent upon humans. Different uses for the same referent does not change the referent.

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

Yup.

Pens are existentially dependent upon humans. — 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.

Different uses for the same referent does not change the referent. — creativesoul

It does, when the referent is a part of your own perspective.
But on some pink sunglasses and your sky becomes pink.

@creativesoul

You still haven't answered my question: How does a thing exists in its entirety, prior to its discovery?

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

There it is .

It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world.

It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul

Then pens didn't exist in their entirety prior to their invention. What is it without the human touch? Not a pen. Not a tree. Not a galaxy. Not the great Merkwurdichliebe.

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.

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. The pen is a particular invention. Can I not use the blood from my finger as a pen? Now we are getting into the same error of functionality that you were claiming of Shamshir.

It can be proven that humans invented pens in this world. — creativesoul

The invention of pens is no different from the discovery of pens.

Man's creative capability is dependent on what is possible, and what is possible is dependent on what is.

Every invention is within the confines of the game and was not brought about by humans.
It was played out by humans.

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

Nah. It's just taking proper account of the existential dependency of a pen. 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 by another human at a later date.

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

That is awfully inferential, and requires major qualification.

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 does not exhaust the requirements for a thing to exist in its entirety prior to its discovery. I know you cannot accept this disjunction.

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

Ya think?

Do we not discover, throughout our lives, the inventions of other people?