DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Cemeuncex** · 05-09-2010, 12:37 AM

Don't be such a bore. You're trying to have an ontological debate about the "nature of Things". I'm trying to tell you that if we don't have any model, we might as well call the stuff "subjective", because the only object we know is indeed "different to different people".

I didn't know you were a platonist metaphysician.

Luckily, we do have a number of candidate models and an active, intense scientific investigation into the phenomenon. The question now is no more subjective than the existence of the luminiferous aether before 1905.

05-09-2010, 12:37 AM	#30
Cemeuncex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 407 Senior Member	Don't be such a bore. You're trying to have an ontological debate about the "nature of Things". I'm trying to tell you that if we don't have any model, we might as well call the stuff "subjective", because the only object we know is indeed "different to different people". I didn't know you were a platonist metaphysician. Luckily, we do have a number of candidate models and an active, intense scientific investigation into the phenomenon. The question now is no more subjective than the existence of the luminiferous aether before 1905.
	Quote