Roger's "Ontologically Objective" - A Question

[BaalChatzaf]

On this view, Rand would have emended her 1961 letter to Hospers.

You can't know that for sure, unless you claim that mental telepathy with a dead person is possible.

Rand wrote what she wrote at one time, said what she said at another time. You can not know what her final position on the matter is/was. You were not in her head nor was anyone else besides her.

Facts are what is. Propositions which are either true or false may or may not assert facts. One has to look and see. There are Facts (actual states or conditions of the world) and there are assertions which may or may not match Facts. I think Wittgenstein got it right. Facts are all that is (Tractatus 1.1)

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

What Ayn Rand "said" in the workshop in ITOE is no more Rand than what Plato said Socrates said was Socrates. We don't know unless we can access the original material and compare line by line. Almost everything put out by the estate of AR purported to be her must be considered highly suspect secondary sources.

--Brant

[Ian]

Entities exist separate from human awareness. Things about entities (facts) exist separate from human awareness. Connections between facts (e.g., causes) exist separate from human awareness.

I am simply saying that entities are not the same thing as facts. Facts are things about entities, and things about other existents.

E.g., it is a fact that mass is an attribute of entities. The fact is not mass, nor entities, nor attribute, but THAT mass IS an attribute of entities. Being an attribute of entities is the relationship between mass and entities, and THAT mass IS an attribute of entities is the fact about that relationship.

All of this exists separate from human awareness.

REB

I like your clarity.