[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That's basically my position. We can ascribe "existence" to them, and it's perfectly valid in a contingent sense, but the only basis for this conception of existence is the set of criteria applied to determine that quality.

There are many ways to cut a cake. I can cut a cake into 8 pieces, and then there are indeed 8 pieces in the cake. Those pieces matter, because they'll determine who gets what part of the cake (and where crumbs will be left behind). But there is nothing special or fundamental that separates piece 1 from piece 2 - I just happened to divide the cake at a certain location. I could have divided the cake at another location, and it would have been equally valid. The individual pieces of cake are a function of my slicing, not a property of the cake itself.

When the cake hasn't yet been sliced, asking about where slice 1 and slice 2 are seems arbitrary and nonsensical. That all depends on where you slice it. In the same sense, a person or object's identity depends on how we choose to assign the property of identity - that property doesn't exist in the universe itself, it's a function of how we choose to divide the universe. I view animalism as a way of assigning idenity - it's just a method of slicing the cake, it's no more "true" or "false" than any other method. The dilemma presented in the OP strikes me as a different method of slicing - or maybe a question of "what should we do with the crumbs?" I don't think there's a right answer.



[/ QUOTE ]

OK I've read your reply to me but feel that responding to this post would be more considerate. It appears you are presenting a type of solipsistic/Kantian type view of knowledge and the world.





In your presentation of "the cake" You are saying that your particular viewpoint of the external world has a validity and that another also may have a validity depending upon "how the cake is cut". You make no mention of the possibility that the cake has an existence of its own.You say it is not discrete, and knowledge of it is dependent upon your particular viewpoint. I'm sure this could be stated better but I believe the drift is apparent.





Let's look at a tree as I see it is a better way to examine the character of the issue. the tree is large, tall, has many branches and reaches to the sky. It is the fall/winter and leaves are not apparent. I would say that the tree speaks for itself and its discrete existence is undeniable and that any truths about this tree will be offered by the tree. There can be differences in our perspectives about the tree as for example if we are sitting around the tree but are a 150 angle from each other. We have what might be called a mathematical difference in perspective but no matter how you cut it it is undeniable that the tree contains its own truth even if we haven't an iota of understanding or in fact are totally incorrect in our thinking. The truths about the tree are not about "opinions" by you and I but are contained within the tree. One might believe that this tree is within the "immutable all" but that in no way comes to the reality of the tree. It seems that one should work with the tree first and leave open the possibility of the "immutable all" for if this is so it will be found in the work. It is not found in the work ,at present, for the naive look at the tree presents discreteness and if you will, an individual tree, via our senses.The tree exists, I know it exists, and refuse to deny my senses.





Now , back to Kant who stated that "you cannot know the thing in itself". Kant looks at the tree and is naively perceiving the tree, a perception. The moment he turns away from the tree he is left with a"memory" of a tree which is not the tree. the drift is that in all of our thinking we work with the "memory' of the tree, an imagination that is actually a condensed picture of the reality but IS NOT THE TREE. This is the Kantian viewpoint and one can see its similarity to yours. I believe that Kant then posited the "categorical imperative" which is common to all and acts as a basis for knowledge and through this we can come to some type of agreement as to our "apparent truths" for after all, we are all 'working within our heads". So if you add a stability factor as Kant did(this is not a justification of Kant), then we can come to agreement. The categorical imperative has its own difficulties but this hasn't stopped modern men from espousing Kant in substance and form.





Now the scientist comes along and states 'I can find the truth of the tree". He immediately begins to chip at the bark, perhaps even cut the tree in half and viola we have knowledge based upon the mineral kingdom. No doubt potassium, sodium, sulfur, etc. will be found and in this the naive man is befuddled for when the chips are made there is no longer a tree. A flower is a flower in the earth and if cut and placed on your dinner table it ceases to be a flower. In the scientific viewpoint the machine gives the relevance to the finding. Man is divorced from the finding for if man begins to think on these things we are back to the "categorical imperative" . This hasn't stopped scientists from thinking, thankfully.





The question is, how does one know the thing in itself?This question can only come about after denying the reality of the tree but it should be asked. What is it that disproves Kant but better yet makes us able to know the "thing in itself"? I'll take a break here and will follow up in another post.













[/ QUOTE ]