Hugo Holbling

Primal blustered:

I'm not Keith! Remember to engage brain before posting!

Presumably you mean Kant. I fear this isn't relevant, dear Primal.

Magnificent again! You're quite right, of course. Kant is my bestest friend and i simply couldn't bear the slur on his honour that your spat engendered; ergo, my sole reason for living these past few days has been to strike back at you!

Tribalism! Wonderful! If i agree with Kant that you haven't yet made a case for your assertion, i'm guilty of tribalism. Surely the next step is to assert that i am Kant, or to use the word "disingenuous" again.

Incidently, i may say for the benefit of others that your responses to Kant were the very epitome of "serious" discussion, praise Jesus.

Uh, this is a public forum, is it not?

At long last!

He is?

What do you mean, "depend"? And why only certain rules?

What? How does this follow?

What the hell are you talking about? Logical principles hold that the law of identity must be proven absolutely? I think i'd better ask our Lord for help understanding you here!

It gets better! I realize that i'm rather slow, so perhaps you can run by me one more time how you got to non-existent things thinking? It's just the merest detail i'm missing, i'm sure.

I think you're confusing it with solipsism here.

You've really missed the boat here, haven't you? You said:

Why would such a subjectivist need to establish his subjectivism by any objective means, then? You're trying to have your cake and eat it, i fear.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> *Must... stay... with... him...*

I refer you to your previous statement. Again.

Now your version of subjectivism smacks of epistemological nihilism!

Now look again:

In the second quote, you're talking about a basis for knowledge, but in the first you're discussing a denial of any knowledge. Are we going for epistemological nihilism, or subjectivism?

WTF?!

Fear not, folks! Here comes the justification:

Amazing! Previously, yet again:

Surely, then, a subjectivist may, according to your definition, not only say that the objectivist is wrong, but that he (the subjectivist) is moreover of the opinion that he (the objectivist) is a jackass to boot!

But you said that our subjectivist only uses opinion; why, then, would he require such a standard?

This is your best yet, i'll allow. Quite breathtaking! "If... blah, blah... then the subjectivist finds himself in a paradox". I'll bet our subjectivist fears for his life in this awkward predicament. However, i shall caution him against suicide until such time as you can establish the paradox without the use of that - doubtless insignificant - word "if".

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

I confess, dear readers, that i'm fading now. Please Jesus, what the hell are you talking about? "Tossing out logic in the realms of truth and existence" - can anyone help? Please?

Ah, well that's that, then.

Here i must agree. May i suggest that this something is God? I may do so in the certainty that He exists, because someone must have been aiding me or i never could have come this far.

I must strike my colours here: i plan to enrol in a logic class, preferably the same one Primal attended. Suicide is also on the cards.

Clutch

Starboy, again, notice "the truth". The problem is not that these people claim to believe truths. They all believe many, many truths. What they problematically claim is to know (at least indirectly, through their god) all truths.

Well, they're wrong. And how this "buggers" the concept of truth is beyond me.

Maybe if you explained what buggering truth amounts to, in rather less graphically metaphorical terms, I might have a clearer idea of the success conditions of your claim.

Keith Russell

Primal,you said:
Keith Russell: 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--

Keith: Primal, if you want to have a private discussion, then keep it private. If you post here, anyone who is a member here should have the right to respond; question; express their own opinions; and/or participate in the discussion.

Primal: --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.

Keith: And, where is the subjectivist's basis for that? More opinion? Is it their opinion that the only basis for 'knowledge' is 'opinion'? How is this not a circular argument--a fallacy? How is this not self-defeating, from a rational standpoint?

Primal: In which case the idea of subjectivism is at odds with logic on a number of points.

Keith: Yes...

Primal: 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.

Keith: So, you agree with me, at least thus far.

Primal: 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.

Keith: Again, we agree.

Primal: 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.

Keith: You and I still agree.

Primal: 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.

Keith: Primal, you andI are in nearly complete agreement on this. I am not going to say that Kant is, or is not, my friend. I don't come here to 'defend' my friends, nor attack my enemies.

I come here to learn, and I have (in my relatively short time here thus far) learned a great deal. I hope my presence is a benefit, not a hindrance, and I hope to continue to learn and to share with the members here.

I would never alter my opinions, nor contradict my own views, neither to 'defend' a friend, nor to attack an enemy. I have numerous friends on-line, and we often disagree. I don't play 'devil's advocate', the views I express are always my own beliefs, values, and opinions--unless otherwise noted.

I'm sorry you felt that I was intruding, but, again, if you want to have a private discussion, keep it private.

Keith.

Keith Russell

Kent Stevens said:
"Truth is a partly buggered concept."

Kent, is that true?

Keith.

Starboy

Hi Clutch:

Perhaps I am wrong. Maybe "truth" is a crystal clear concept. Could you please define what it is?

Starboy

Keith Russell

Truth is.

What is, what exists is true.

Keith.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Starboy

Sorry, I couldn’t help it. As regards your definition: “It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.”

Starboy

Clutch

Starboy, if you can't explain what you meant, just drop it. Don't try bluster your way out by projecting a straw man claim onto me.

I did not say that the concept of truth is crystal clear, as you well know. I said that I don't know what you mean about its being "buggered". None of the things you said seemed to make much sense of this claim, though.

I also don't think that the operation of my car's fuel injection system is crystal clear. But if a mechanic tells me it's buggered, he'd better be able to explain just how.

Feather

This thread reminds me of the scene in Labyrinth when wossname is at the doors of Truth/Lies.

Starboy

My statement is an opinion based on numerous conversations with people regarding the “truth”, but I am open to arguments that would show me to be wrong. Perhaps you can explain what you think it is, and then I might agree with you. You are convinced of it’s utility so it should not be difficult for you to both define it and explain it's usefulness. It seems to be such a core concept to philosophy I would think it’s meaning and use would be crystal clear after two thousand years of philosophical thought. Or could it be that everybody talks about the “truth” but nobody really knows what it is?

Starboy