[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Healthy agnosticism
In a message dated 3/23/01 9:11:50 PM Central Standard Time,
dasmith at rotse2_physics.lsa.umich.edu writes:
<< I would further claim that
anything objective is by definition meaningless, since we impart meaning to
objective facts, rendering them subjective
<snip>
I don't buy the idea that because we taint objective fact with our subjective
*reason* that that makes the objective meaningless. I would assume you mean
meaningless to us not that it isn't still fact. But there too I would
disagree. Sure it is impossible to know something fully apart from our own
experience because of our finite knowledge but I wouldn't think that means we
can't know something substantially enough to gather true meaning from it. I'm
not a scientist but I gather from your previous post that we don't know all
there is to know about physics, does that mean we know nothing meaningful
about it?
Knowing what something means has implications for past and future, while
an objective fact only exists in its present. >>
I'm not sure I follow this so maybe I'm totally off base from what you meant
here but couldn't an objective fact (depending on the fact that is) but,
let's say an eternal fact, have even more ramifiations to the past and future
than our personal knowledge can ascertain. In fact, it's ramifications would
stretch outside of man's space-time continuum.
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/