How can one possibly deny Subjectivism?

[Xander]

We as humans... and what of other beings? What would it take to be objective?

To know one thing you must know all that it links to, anything which could have a bearing on it if just to establish that it does not have any affect. Ergo to be objective is to be akin to the common descriptors of mono theistic God.

Either that or you need to be an INTP who's not long gone past their thirteenth birthday. Apparently that has the same effect.

 

[jixmixfix]

I believe in objectivism and consider myself an objectivist.It is based on the idea that there are certain truths that exist outside of ourselves. Objectivism is believing in science and logic.

 

[Obsidius]

I believe in objectivism and consider myself an objectivist.It is based on the idea that there are certain truths that exist outside of ourselves. Objectivism is believing in science and logic.

Well, science is based upon subjectivism, it is based upon something called empiricism, which is basically a form of subjectivism, but a bit more systematic. I'm sure you've heard the term "empirical evidence", which is the cornerstone of science, and this is basically just saying that you need "evidence from experience", which is subjective, just more systematic. Logic is also very subjective, you are using your personal rationale in order to deduce conclusions, which is why so many people come to different conclusions about the nature of the Universe or the constituents of it.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

i have thought this too. Growing up I was an ace in school taking physics and chemistry and seeing everything through a definable lenses until I realized that the entire species is subjective in it's measurements since each measurement infinitely displaces it's own measure by the subjective nature of the instrument which alludes to the geometry of the subjective human psyche - i.e. imagined body...since we really do not have a body, but that is just further on the frontier of said objective statement which is really subjective.

good night...bed time.

 

[jixmixfix]

Well, science is based upon subjectivism, it is based upon something called empiricism, which is basically a form of subjectivism, but a bit more systematic. I'm sure you've heard the term "empirical evidence", which is the cornerstone of science, and this is basically just saying that you need "evidence from experience", which is subjective, just more systematic. Logic is also very subjective, you are using your personal rationale in order to deduce conclusions, which is why so many people come to different conclusions about the nature of the Universe or the constituents of it.

I disagree I think there are truths that are objective and not subjective.For example gravity will exist whether our minds perceive it or not.

 

[Obsidius]

Well, to me, objective has a particular meaning... it is something that links subjects together. So, if something can come into both yours and my experience, it is an object.

Consider the colour red. I can see red, you can see red. Red is objective. Red is real, red is true. But, does red have any experience? Well, red is the experience. But wait. Do I have any experience? No, I am the experience.

So we haven't found anything which exists outside of experience, or isn't itself experience. However there's something not quite right about the fact that your mind is not really experienced by me, yet still exists beyond my experience of it. What existence does your mind have to me? I cannot experience it but it is there... hidden. Existence is relative, but surely existence is also absolute? Surely your mind exists whether I know it or not?

The truth is hidden from our experience, for there is a world that we do not know. There are things that are hidden to me, you, and all people and all of the entire universe. Yet it exists. Other dimensions unexplored, where all we know breaks down, where all law and truth is ripped apart in a screaming vortex. Clouds of aether expanding beyond the reaches of space and time, with a million different colours, and a harmony that cannot be dreamt.

Wait... You've just redefined objective arbitrarily, I mean, objective just means "free of subject", basically, the 'thing' in question is, as it is, without subjective interpretation; that's what it means, and my contention is that it is impossible to know that such a thing exists, because for us to know, we must interpret it. Also, red is not true, "red" is a concept you have been taught to label a certain wavelength of light, for all we know my red could be your blue. Also, you can ASSUME things exist outside your experience, but you cannot be objectively certain, that is a different issue altogether, you've just stated that "surely things do exist outside of our experience", without reason to convince. Though, I get the sentiment of what you're saying, we can logically infer external existences and conditions, but I doubt objective conclusions can be made.

 

[Obsidius]

I disagree I think there are truths that are objective and not subjective.For example gravity will exist whether our minds perceive it or not.

Again, this is about semantics. "Gravity" is a concept, that you have assigned to perceived phenomena, that is all, you probably can't objectively state its existence because the only reason you are aware of its existence is through your subjectivism. This just gets tricky from here on.

 

[jixmixfix]

Again, this is about semantics. "Gravity" is a concept, that you have assigned to perceived phenomena, that is all, you probably can't objectively state its existence because the only reason you are aware of its existence is through your subjectivism. This just gets tricky from here on.

yes but its the belief that gravity exists whether we percieve it or not. No we are aware of its existence through the external influences it has on us it affects everyone the same way and their individual perception of it doesn't change its influences.

 

[Obsidius]

yes but its the belief that gravity exists whether we percieve it or not. No we are aware of its existence through the external influences it has on us it affects everyone the same way and their individual perception of it doesn't change its influences.

Okay, so you admit that it is inference or assumption that gravity exists externally? Because in that case, so do I, but I do not KNOW that it is objective.

 

[jixmixfix]

Okay, so you admit that it is inference or assumption that gravity exists externally? Because in that case, so do I, but I do not KNOW that it is objective.

why not?

 

[Obsidius]

why not?

I already explained this profusely, read back on what I've said previously.

 

[Xander]

Logic is also very subjective, you are using your personal rationale in order to deduce conclusions,

Can a theory be known objectively? In theory it should be able to.

I get your point but logic does not give answers just tools. You can't say that two screwdrivers aren't equal because the one you gave to a numpty didn't make as good a chair as the one you gave to a joiner, for example.

Also (probably nitpicking) but if you're using your personal rationale then wouldn't it be incorrect to use the title "deduce"?

 

[jixmixfix]

I already explained this profusely, read back on what I've said previously.

If you believe reality exists whether you perceive it or not which I think many of us believe then your point of view is invalid.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

Actually no one knows if gravity exists because know one knows what existence is.

 

[Blank]

To be clear, this is ASSUMED subjectivism, so no positive claim of "there is no objective truth" is being made, but rather we are talking about one admitting that the only true thing is their perspective on that thing, because any other perspective is not a constituent of theirs. Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". Now, we're not talking extreme forms of subjectivism like Solipsism or a Matrix complex of any kind, but rather a softer permutation of the philosophy, that merely admits agnosticism to any external condition upon the universe; I simply have no idea how someone can claim any objective truth as objective. If you believe in absolutism or objectivism, please present your arguments, and how these "truths" of yours are completely free from your perspective or bias in their veracity.

I think the way you've framed this thread with its title is a little bit incongruent. I do not deny the bolded statement, yet I deny subjectivism. How you ask? Like this:

Assuming we each have a set of moral values which are all equally correct (according to subjectivism,) then how can you justifiably settle the differences between those two moral codes which may come into conflict?
E.g. I think it's morally permissible to steal in order to live, you think it's unjust to steal under any circumstances, and yet I steal from you. How does this get resolved? Bring in a third party? It doesn't matter, and I posit in this argument no progress will be made in establishing a moral hierarchy. Let this follow the slippery slope, and there's no real rationale that can reform a serial killer who thinks killing is not just morally permissible, but morally good since his morality is no less valid than any other's. In this scenario, subjectivism lacks authority. In fact, I'd say subjectivism actively works to remove any authority from its framework because once you inhibit someone else's subjective views (stopping a murderer) you are effectively claiming that your personal morality has more validity than another's...which inherently is not subjectivism.


To extrapolate from this, if subjectivism, in that, "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience" is true but has no authority or bearing on resolving real world conflicts, then perhaps subjectivism isn't real after all. I would argue so, and in subjectivism's place, I would say that subjectivism is merely a framework of description, a tautological one at that. Saying everyone has a subjective truth or view is essentially saying the same as Person A thinks B. or Person A likes B and dislikes C or even more broadly: People make observations.

I would be a little foolish to deny that other people make observations but if this line of thought is sound, then I feel justified in being able to deny the concept of "subjectivism" as mere abstraction from reality and thus, in effect, pointless.



I love this kind of discussion, btw.

 

[á´…eparted]

Actually no one knows if gravity exists because know one knows what existence is.

Yes we do. We can observe the effects of it and it is used in pretty much every aspect of physics to explain and work many common phenomona and applications.

We might not know the true detail of how it exactly works on a core fundemental level (i.e. within partical physics, and even then there are theories), but we do have a solid understanding.

 

[GarrotTheThief]

 

[Habba]

Assuming we each have a set of moral values which are all equally correct (according to subjectivism,) then how can you justifiably settle the differences between those two moral codes which may come into conflict? E.g. I think it's morally permissible to steal in order to live, you think it's unjust to steal under any circumstances, and yet I steal from you. How does this get resolved? Bring in a third party?

Which ever party is the stronger, gets to push it's subjective view unto other. This happens all the time. Most of us believe it is wrong to praise nazism, so we suffocate any party that actively tries to do so. On the other hand, we praise colonilism (invasion of americas) because they are in the majority. We are actively returning items/property/titles Nazis stole, but refuse to do so to native americans.

You are effectively claiming that your personal morality has more validity than another's...which inherently is not subjectivism.[/B]

I do not understand why this is the case. I believe subjectivism is actively placing validity on personal views. We all believe our's is the right one, but only the strongest views gets to spread.

These are based on my own subjective views of subjectivism. Before coming here I didn't realize it was a thing, I thought it was something I had made up. I used to think that "People do not directly see objective truths. They see them through subjective lenses. Hence they only see subjective truths."

 

[Blank]

[MENTION=4644]Habba[/MENTION] The root of your argument essentially stems down to "Might Makes Right," which to me seems as though it could fall under objectivism much better than subjectivism. Personal views are invalidated when overcome by power...I think this is an implicit negation of subjectivism.

 

[Obsidius]

I think the way you've framed this thread with its title is a little bit incongruent. I do not deny the bolded statement, yet I deny subjectivism. How you ask? Like this:

Assuming we each have a set of moral values which are all equally correct (according to subjectivism,) then how can you justifiably settle the differences between those two moral codes which may come into conflict?
E.g. I think it's morally permissible to steal in order to live, you think it's unjust to steal under any circumstances, and yet I steal from you. How does this get resolved? Bring in a third party? It doesn't matter, and I posit in this argument no progress will be made in establishing a moral hierarchy. Let this follow the slippery slope, and there's no real rationale that can reform a serial killer who thinks killing is not just morally permissible, but morally good since his morality is no less valid than any other's. In this scenario, subjectivism lacks authority. In fact, I'd say subjectivism actively works to remove any authority from its framework because once you inhibit someone else's subjective views (stopping a murderer) you are effectively claiming that your personal morality has more validity than another's...which inherently is not subjectivism.


To extrapolate from this, if subjectivism, in that, "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience" is true but has no authority or bearing on resolving real world conflicts, then perhaps subjectivism isn't real after all. I would argue so, and in subjectivism's place, I would say that subjectivism is merely a framework of description, a tautological one at that. Saying everyone has a subjective truth or view is essentially saying the same as Person A thinks B. or Person A likes B and dislikes C or even more broadly: People make observations.

I would be a little foolish to deny that other people make observations but if this line of thought is sound, then I feel justified in being able to deny the concept of "subjectivism" as mere abstraction from reality and thus, in effect, pointless.



I love this kind of discussion, btw.

Okay, for starters, the "bolded statement" is literally the key tenant of subjectivism, that is the philosophy distilled in a single line. Okay, straight off, subjectivism does not say all moral values are equal, in fact, quite the opposite, whatever moral values are most agreeable to the subject are the better ones, because the values are subject to the perceiver. Okay, again, the key cornerstone of this discussion was to argue the veracity of subjectivism, and if you agree with its truth value personally, not the implications, but I'll entertain your argument regardless. Okay, what you're saying is that because of subjectivism's implications, all authority or social opinion is thrown out, and we can't justly punish people... The fact is, that's what happens, authorities and people in power just decide on rules, through whatever process, and the underlings follow it through fear of punishment, it's not about what is true or not, that's just what happens because of how power dynamics work. And claiming one value set it better than another IS subjectivism, you subjectively decide what value set is better subjectively

Okay, I agree with you here, the point is; objective knowledge and law do not exist, that is the controversial part of this entire discussion which conflicts with the very fundamentals of people's philosophies.

It is not pointless, because people fail to realise their subjectivity, or the subjective nature of the Universe. They hold fast to this notion that there are these fundamental absolutes throughout reality, which needs challenging.