Bluenose

Hi Keith, with the added info, You're more or less right, since my knowledge of biology is limited. [I try to avoid true/false, right/wrong either/or dualisms.]

In fact what I was thinking when I saw your 'no sound' post was the limitations of science and human sensation/perception.

Primal

Keith Russel: I am not aware of whether or not Knt is your friend, but if he is and you are making such statements in order to, defend your pal's "honor" I must say that this tribalism is not very helpful in a serious discussion. I do not see why I am supposed to explain mine and Kant's little querrel to you or what business you have in getting into it, so in respect to answering questions about my treatment of Kant I will not answer you, as I think such discussion bears no relevance to any examination of either subjectivism or epistemology.

As for the question...how is subjectivism self-refuting?

Well when the subjectivist states that either all knowledge or reality is subjective, he or she is saying that the only basis for knowledge is opinion or belief.

In which case the idea of subjectivism is at odds with logic on a number of points. Certain rules of logic are said to be true whether one depends on them or not. Rules like the principle of noncontradiction and identity. To say that these things are subjective is to say they are only true as a matter of preference, in which case one is denying the very validity of these logical principles wich holds that these things must be proven absolutely. Otherwise the entire logical system is worthless, as then non-existent things can think and so on. In this way subjectivism is at odds with logic and is self-refuting.


Subjectivism is likewise self-refuting in the sense that it cannot establish the existence of other minds, because that would imply knowledge of and the existence of something other then the subjective, in this case there is no point in arguing.

Subjectivism is likewise self-refuting in that it would itself be a matter of mere subjective belief, neither true nor false but opinion, and would hence not be able to establish itself by any objective means. This means there will be no reason to accept subjectivism or see it as valid.

Subjectivism likewise cannot be generalized. Such a generalization to other minds would presuppose knowledge of another mind's contents and capabilities, knowledge of something external to one's own mind. In this way again, subjectivism is self-refuting because it cannot be generalized to others that it is trying to convince. When the subjectivist for example claims that there is no "God's eye view", the subjectivist himself is supposing that he has a God's eye view of other minds, knows their capabilities or content. In other words, one could not declare that there is no God's eye view unless one had a God's eye view one's-self.

If knowledge is subjective and a matter of preference, then the subjectivist will have to admit that metaphysical objectivist systems are real, as well as admit that objective knowledge claims are true. Otherwise the subjectivist will have to say the objectivist is wrong, but then the issue isn't strictly subjective. For then the subjectist will have to say by what standard, other then preference that person was wrong, and such a standard can only come from a nonsubjective source. But if the objectist position can be said to be right, it would have to be said to apply to more then one, as that is what objectivism entails. But then that would suppose that there was an objective truth and subjectivism was false, in which case the subjectivist finds himself in a paradox.

Subjectivism likewise cannot be established via evidence, as it has thrown out the necssary standards needed to do so 'a priori'.


Lastly, I will like to affirm that the subjective position implies that all knowledge is limited to the subjective or that all which exists is the subjective. I know a subjectivist may try to counter my arguments by saying:

But there can be limits, rules and logic: in which case its not all mere opinion or preference.

But I would respond by pointing out that if all that exists or is known is subjectivity and that within the mind, then what can limit the mind from tossing out logic in the realms of truth and existence?

If it is nothing, then my points above stand.

If it is something, then there would be something nonsubjective limiting subjectivity. This limiting factor would have to be nonsubjective because if it was subjective it would rely on subjective dispositions and therefore be at their mercy, something at the mercy of subjectivism could hardly limit subjectivism. However if the subjectivist admits that this nonsubjective limit exists, then the subjectivist has likewise defeated his own position by admitting a bit of objectivity, (an existent or standards nonsubjective), into the picture. In which case subjectivism falls when examined from a logical viewpoint.

Starboy

Well put Kent. IMO "truth" is such a buggered concept that it is not worth using in most discourse. For those that confuse "truth" with reality, why not just use the word "reality"? Much less confusing in so many different contexts, especially those that are likey to be found on this forum.

Starboy

Clutch

Why is that a problem? There is of course a difference between believing truths and having an exhaustive knowledge of all truths (which is probably an incoherent idea). Presumably if one's representations of reality are correct, one believes truths.
Of course, you are not the first person to say this. Plato held the first doctrine, Kant (the real one, no offense to the "local" I.K.) held the second. But are these claims supposed to be obviously correct? And why on earth would they show that the very concept of truth is "buggered", whatever that amounts to.

From what I can see, your complaint amount to this: People often have incorrect or incomplete beliefs.

This shows what, exactly, about the concept of truth?

Starboy

Clutch if you want a demonstration of how buggered the word "truth" is just look at the varied use of it in this very thread.

Starboy

RogerLeeCooke

Well, I'll give you my amateur epistemic foundation, absolutely free, and worth every penny of the price, I might add.

The word "faith" is a misnomer when applied to the working hypotheses that scientists use. I have a great deal of confidence in scientific methods, based on its past performance, but not absolute confidence. When hypotheses don't work in science, they get modified or discarded. That's one large difference between science and religion. Another is that science has a much better track record of results.

Also, it is not true, as theists claim, that since we have to start with assumptions, any assumption is as good as any other. Whether an assumption is good can be determined (approximately) by the results it yields.

Clutch

Starboy, you might as well say that math is buggered, since so many people misunderstand it. Never mind evolution.

Starboy

Clutch the major difference between math and "truth" is that most people that don't undstand math will say so, but every Christian, Jew and Muslim on the planet claims to know the "truth".

Starboy

Kent Stevens

Part of the problem with the word truth is that it implies perfect knowledge. But knowledge changes if you look at the history of ideas.

If someone has the complete truth please tell me it. How did the Universe begin? How many physical dimensions does the Universe have? How do you reconcile quantum effects with relativity? In terms of mathematics, how about proving things like the Goldenbach conjecture.

We do not have a similar mental headache over when it comes to technology, as opposed to when we are talking about truth. We do not claim that we have the optimum technology. We do not claim that our cars or our computers are the best possible technology. Nor do we think that we will arrive at having an optimum car or an optimum computer. If someone says I have the "optimum", people would be quick to rubbish what this person says. Here the "optimum" means the optimum technology. The only exception might be the claims that certain people have about Macintosh computers being the "optimum". But when some religious leader says they have the "truth" people rush out to believe the given perception of reality. People some how believe that perfect knowledge is obtainable, but do not believe that perfect technolgy is obtainable.

In terms of technology there is not a debate between technological relativists and technological objectivists. The technological relativists if they existed would point out how technology differs between different cultures. The technological relativists would point out that Asians have traditionally used chopsticks while Europeans have used knives and forks. The technological objectivists would point out how technology is universal in that nearly everyone these days uses things such as the wheel. Technology is partly universal in that certain technologies applies to all cultures. But technology is also relative in that certain technology applies only to certain cultures.

The same thinking applies to knowledge and morality. Knowledge and morality are in some sense universal in that people have certain ideas in common. Knowledge and morality is relative in the sense that different cultures have different conceptions from one another. Perhaps a better way of looking at things is to say that cultures are both similar to and different from one another.

[ September 26, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Stevens ]</p>

phaedrus

So ???

-----

Truth and Meaning

Truth" no longer signifies the "correspondence" of "mental states" to "objective" reality, and "meaning" is no longer conceived of as some sort of objective, in-itself state of affairs which merely awaits being "discovered" and "represented" by a mirroring mind.

"Truth" and "meaning" refer instead to creative operations on the part of human understanding itself, which is always interpretive (never simply "representational"). Truth is inseparable from the interpretive process, and meaning is nothing other than what results from such a process, namely, the existential-practical transformation that occurs in the interpreting subject (in his or her world orientation) as a result of his or her active encounter with texts, other people, or "the world." Truth and meaning have nothing "objective" about them, in the modern, objectivistic sense of the term; they are integral aspects of the "event" of understanding itself, are inseparable from the "play" of understanding.

Knowldege

"Knowledge" is not the possession of a "transcendental signified," a translinguistic "essence". It is nothing other than the shared understanding that a community of inquirers comes to as a result of a free exchange of opinions. It is a process of "communication."

-------------