RE: virus: Social Metaphysics

Robin Faichney (
Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:16:24 +0100

> From: David McFadzean[]
> At 10:01 AM 9/25/97 +0100, Robin Faichney wrote:
> >I don't think so. It is certainly widely viewed as confusion,
> >between epistemology and ontology, but that particular
> >dichotomy can be questioned, and there is only a logical
> >fallacy if it is accepted without question. Personally, it
> >makes a great deal of sense to me to connect the
> >question about whether something exists with the
> >question as to how we can know about it. Science
> >certainly does so, and it is only classical Western
> >philosophy (as far as I know) that does not.
> I am not talking about theoretical things that can't be
> detected. I'm talking about things that existed *before*
> anyone knew about them, like the earth before there was any
> life.
Sorry. Thought you were talking about confusing knowledge
of a thing with its existence.

> >This may be an appropriate point for me to drop in
> >one of my pet theories: most people are either
> >subjectivists or objectivists[1]. That is, they tend
> >towards one or other of the poles of a dimension of
> >personality, like Jung's ones of thinking vs feeling,
> >neurotic vs ??, extraverted vs introverted. Those
> >who say that the concept of objective reality
> >derives from subjective experience are subjectivists.
> >Those who say that subjective experience derives
> >from objective reality are objectivists. Those who
> >are balanced, tending towards neither extreme, say
> >you can look at it either way. Comments, please?
> Do you know of anyone that would disagree with either
> statement?
Sorry again. I try to keep my mail folders small,
and I don't have time to trawl archives, but I
could have sworn this thread was about precisely
that issue. Perhaps you or someone else could
explain to me, offline if that's considered
appropriate, what it was about, if not whether
subjectivity or objectivity is primary.