Primal

For those of you who honestly don't understand what I'm trying to say about subjectivism though it's like this.

Say person X has rejected the math system as a matter of opinion, all math he says is just made up. This person has rejected the absolute nature of numbers, formula, ect. Now how can you convince this person that 2+2=4? You can't, such a statement will be seen as opinion, you could try showing him how given the values of the numbers, and what + and = mean, this necessarily follows. However that person can just deny this, as number values, the meaning of plus and equal signs etc. are all matters of opinion.

Same thing for a subjectivist who sees logic as opinion, you can try showing him how the system contradicts, but if logic is just a "social construct" or "matter of pure opinion"; then the law of noncontradiction is no exception and the effort is wasted.

All one can do in this situation is realize how utterly wrong the sujectivist is and move on:

As Isaac Asimov said:

And move on. This obviously touches a sore spot on the relativist, like Kant who has resorted to accusing me of fallacies, without saying how my arguments were fallacious. "They just were" I guess.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Clutch

Keith,

Well... not really.

Reality is a thing. Everything, more precisely. {x: x=x}, if you like.

Existence is (roughly and readily) what reality does. Less roughly and readily, I like Frege's take on it: Existence is a concept applying to other concepts. To say that the concept exists applies to the concept red is to say that red's extension is non-empty.

Truth, however, is a semantic property.

The moon is part of reality. The moon exists. But the moon is not true. It's the wrong sort of thing to be true or false.

These three notions are intimately related, but are not equivalent.

Kantian

Am I safe in the assumption that what follows is not entirely proper?

I’d be happy to point out that your statements are all the support I need in identifying them as bad arguments. Since I am not making a claim, an assertion about how self-refuting subjectivism is, it is you who is blessed with the burden of proof. Ergo, I need no support in demonstrating how shallow and insipid your case is, at least up to this point.

False. I called your characterization of a subjectivist as a person who can invent a lie, despite how wrong it is, once his premises are accepted as an ad hominem. You have not demonstrated how this is the case- rather all I have seen, to this date, are mischaracterizations by way of excessively gratuitous assertions cloaked by excessively bad arguments.

Identifying bad arguments is abuse?
Perhaps you substitute your feelings in place of strong evidence of your arguments. Politically correct behavior is useful in the social realm, but remains an obstacle in philosophical discussions.
That is not my definition of a subjectivist, but rather a response to your claim that the subjectivist has abandoned logic, which is trivially false. But thank you for defining the subjectivist as a person who “thinks that all exists is subjective… even logic.” How does logic “exist”? Personally I would limit existence to empirical matters, not that of a priori knowledge. Doesn’t logic at least appear to the subjectivist as a useful schema for gaining the most out of his world?

Let's not be too disingenuous here. My statement was a direct response to your remark: If I was a hard core subjectivist, and you pointed to contradictions in my theory; I could say "well the contradictions establish it". If that is not stuffed with mildewy straw, i don't know what is.

Why don't you defend your assertions, instead of bitching and moaning how unfair I have represented you? That way you can appear intellectually sound and proficient at destroying subjectivism. But no, you took the pity-poor-me route, and decided to digress this discussion away from subjectivism.

In the likely case you’ve forgotten: An argument that explicitly demonstrates the inherent contradiction of subjectivism is still missing.

Either put up or shut up.

~Transcendentalist~

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Keith Russell

Clutch:

And we're into semantics, yet again.

I would say the moon is true; in the same sense that unicorns are not true.

And so it goes...

Keith.

Kantian

Quick question- what is the difference between a relativist, a subjectivist, and a solipsist- in your own words. I'm getting the distinct feeling that you may be conflating all three into one gooey concept. As far as I can tell, you have been redefining subjectivism as relativism, that what is worthwhile is contingent, or depends on circumstances. That is most definitely not subjectivism.

~Radical Idealist~

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Kant ]</p>

Primal

Kant you are behaving in a childish manner:

Some evidence of this

Which leaves me wondering how the issue of political correctness even came up or what it has to do with anything?

A good way of avoiding actually having to prove your assertions.

The rationality of your viewpoint overwhelms me.

Yeah that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. I guess you just have me figured out.

Couldn't be you blatant accusations of fallacies coupled with no support whatsoever.

You're seeing bad arguments? What a coincidence.


And I did this when? And this is an ad homined how?

Kant, this is the sort of post someone in High School would make, and even though its somewhat amusing it is hardly worth my time nor is it worthy of consideration in a serious intellectual discussion. Imagine two people engaging in a professional debate and one of them yells "either put up or shut up!". That's like something Kent Hovind would do. So if you do not change your style i.e. get serious and start making legitimate points backed by proof instead of saying "I need no support in demonstrating how shallow and insipid your case is". I will just ignore you, that simple. In other words please grow up and remember that "it's better to be thought a fool in silence then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Thank you and good bye.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Primal

Kant: I basically see no difference as they all claim the same thing basically. In fact I did get in a debate with a relativist that said it was "subjectivism" which claims all truth is opinion, NOT relativism.

<a href="http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21151-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.christianforums.com/threads/21151-1.html</a>

Towards the end, pages 10-15 the relativist Brimshack takes great pains to note that the true culprit who says that reality is all opinion; is not the relativist but the subjectivist. Now you can disagree, but have fun debating with Brimshack about it for a week. Of course, I told him the subjectivist would say likewise, but of course he didn't take that claim seriously. The irony amazes me in fact.

Basically the internet encyclopedia of philosophy defines it as:

Basically meaning that reality or knowledge is a matter of perceptions or mental states i.e. opinions. Though I question the perceptions=truth, aspect as that sounds more like postivism to me.

There is no general consensus on what subjectivism or relativism means though, there is no official definition. Hence I tend to go by what the relativists and subjectivists say, and basically it's the same thing: reality or truth is what you believe/prefer it is.

They are both ultimately a form of constructivism, a school of thought that sees all axioms as equally arbitrary, likewise they cannot (subjectivists or relativists) decide on what divides subjectivism and relativism even amongst themselves. Hence I don't really make a distinction between the two, as both the relativist and subjectivist will each claim "no, that's not me.....that's THEM". And far be it for me to disagree with the experts.

[ September 25, 2002: Message edited by: Primal ]</p>

Kantian

Primal
Childish reaction, perhaps, given the atrociously poor argumentation I have seen so far. I guess you can’t stand being exposed.
I’m calling it as such, based on the direction you have decided to take this discussion. Where's the argument for the self-refutation of subjectivism?
I’m not making any assertions- just the fact that the shoe fits to a “t.” But you won’t confess that they’re yours!
Evasion is a nice tactic in debates, but it doesn’t really get you anywhere. Where's the argument for the self-refutation of subjectivism?
So you admit your arguments are bad and that calling them bad is abuse. I guess you never really had a case. Where's the argument for the self-refutation of subjectivism?
To this date, I have yet to see a good one. Where's the argument for the self-refutation of subjectivism?
It’s an ad hominem, perhaps precisely a strawman to put words in a possible subjectivist’s mouth and reduce him or her to an object of ridicule.
And in the next post you replied. Hmm....
A subjectivist is a position of authority, usually in epistemology, that he is the one who invokes truths, whereas a relativist claims all truths are contingent. Descartes, Kant, and several other philosophers may be called subjectivists, given their grounding in the subject, without being called relativists. There’s a world of difference. Try again, bubba.
False. A subjectivist is grounded in the self, as in the Cartesian tradition, whereas a relativist dates back to the sophists- that all truths are contingent.
Who are the experts you are citing? Here’s an article from xrefer that warns of the <a href="http://www.xrefer.com/entry/553039" target="_blank">possible confusion of conflating relativism and subjectivism.</a>

It was entertaining, but useless in the end. You couldn't come up in the clutch with an argument that demonstrates the contradiction within subjectivism, or at least a passable one.
~Transcendentalist~

Primal

Kant this is ridiculous and I am not even going to answer your points, not because you have an argument but because your an obnoxious child who really can't seem to handle a constructive argument so you instead turn to silly "your just stupid" type insults. If you represent the subjectivist position, then I'd venture to say your arguments alone make the objectist position the more respectable of the two. The fanaticism and immaturity of your posts bellies any respectability you may think your arguments have. I'd also say your zealousness alone does more to descredit the subjectivist position then my own arguments ever did. I AM IGNORING YOU so please direct your pathetic banter somewhere else. And stop posting up articles from shall we say, less then authoritative websites, to try and lend weight to your half-baked ideas. Grow up, take a logic class and get back to me when you get beyond the mud slinging stage of your mental developement. If you ever do.

Clutch

Keith, In the same sense that Wednesdays are upside-down?