3 ms·
Your comparison with corporations and nations is not entirely fitting. Money and words work out fine. In the case of nations, we don't have to agree for them t
by sspiff 8y ago
Your comparison with corporations and nations is not entirely fitting. Money and words work out fine.
In the case of nations, we don't have to agree for them to be real. For example, China (the Peoples Republic of China) does not agree that Taiwan (the Republic of China) exists or vice versa, yet both are undeniably real. The same with Serbia and Kosovo.
Some things exist only because of convention or an agreement between people, like the value of a Nobel prize or money.
Other things exist because we can empirically prove that they exist, like protons and gravity. If we all agree that they don't exist, it doesn't make it so.
- kelnos 8y agoI think you're just splitting hairs here. You didn't invalidate the parent's point by finding a few counterexamples; on the contrary I think you just reinforced it by showing when it does and doesn't apply. The parent never claimed that all things in the world are subject to mass agreement.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> For example, China (the Peoples Republic of China) does not agree that Taiwan (the Republic of China) exists or vice versa Yes, they do. The government calling itself the PRC denies the legitimacy of the ROC, and vice versa, but despite each claiming to be the sole legitimate government of the combined territory, each very clearly believes that the other exists, and reacts to the actions of the other and to third parties’ actions toward the other.
- torstenvl 8y agoSince when does "broad mass agreement" have to mean "universal agreement"? The idea of intersubjectivity has never relied on there being zero dissent. Your argument is a straw man at best.