The world is not objective

[ebola?]

But I think there are limits to this metaphor. First, while it's certainly true that my categorization of something as a computer depends on social reality, my categorization of it as a solid object, as such, does not.

Mmmm...while I think that the concept of solidity borders on universal for possible investigators of the physical world, I don't think that the existence of particular objects shares this status. Why engage a computer? Why not a random blur of plastic casing? A complex of all objects at waist level? And so on. . .

Second, while we might attempt to go further, and say that with different senses, the very concept of solidity might not make any sense, I cannot imagine what these different senses would be; and I have never seen or heard of any evidence that any creature possesses such senses.

I think that solidity is 1 level of abstraction from sensoria, so it shouldn't matter in terms of
'necessities'.

And while I can express grammatically the possibility that there is a layer even beneath THAT, which amounts to Kant's transcendental reality, I'm not sure there's anything to the concept.

Nothing that we could possibly know empirically, no. However, stratifying realms as such presents certain logical consequences for whatever metaphysics we're building.

Fair enough, though there might be something to asking why you desperately wish to know this.

Heh. It appears to relate to who I am, at root.

ebola

 

[Heuristic]

Mmmm...while I think that the concept of solidity borders on universal for possible investigators of the physical world, I don't think that the existence of particular objects shares this status. Why engage a computer? Why not a random blur of plastic casing? A complex of all objects at waist level? And so on. . .

I agree that the concept of a computer, as such, requires a form of socialization, especially if we want to adopt a very rich conception of a computer in our society. But the encounter with the computer as a solid object doesn't strike me as something requiring socialization. Blurriness doesn't have anything to do with solidity; and to make sense of a complex of objects at waist level, we still need to talk about the actual objects at waist level.

I think that solidity is 1 level of abstraction from sensoria, so it shouldn't matter in terms of
'necessities'.

I've read about sensoria, but I've never actually seen it.

Nothing that we could possibly know empirically, no. However, stratifying realms as such presents certain logical consequences for whatever metaphysics we're building.

Certainly very negative consequences for trees and the eyes of philosophy students. But, my point is not simply that some underlying layer of reality could not be empirically knowable--my point is that I literally can't make any sense of it.

Heh. It appears to relate to who I am, at root.

That's a pretty safe statement if you're going to buy into Kant's metaphysics. Just about everything relates to our own nature.