Primal

Hugo accuses me of not being aware of important philosophical differences, and then "blunders"

So my criticism applied to all three schools? Interesting Hugo.

Hugo then "blusters"

Admitting that he never really adressed a single one of my points. Good work Hugo, you do a better job of of advancing my position then I ever could have.

Hugo Holbling

No. The point is that your "criticism" was supposed to be addressing subjectivism, but your understanding of it so poor that you ended-up confusing it with solipsism and epistemological nihilism. Hence, the majority of your "criticism" was nothing more than a straw man.

The rest was plain nonsense, unfortunately.

Try again...

Another sound inference. Way to go, Primal. How about taking your ranting to the link i provided and leaving this forum for philosophy?

No, i don't. That you fail to understand this comes as no surprise, alas. Why not take your nonsense elsewhere, unless you have anything to add concerning epistemic foundations?

I ought to ask, by the way: aren't you supposed to be ignoring me?

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Hugo Holbling ]</p>

Primal

Both of them? How so? Do tell.

Also did you ever consider the fact that subjectivism is a subspecies of relativism, and that some criticisms may apply to all the above then?

Just as a criticism of objectivism would be attacking naturalism,realism,materialism and marxism. Just because a criticism applies to more then one school of thought Hugo, hardly means that there was a failure to distinguish.

I see you make lots of comments like these with no back-up whatsoever. Please be a little more explicit on your one-liners. Saying "You're just plain wrong." Sounds a little too fundy for my tastes.


Actually I have been trying to discuss philosophy. Why? Have you had another agenda?


Mere denials make for poor argument.

Kinda hard to do when your posts are contsantly following mine. It's kinda hard to "ignore" someone when they are basically at your side trying to say something to you or about you all day. Besides, if you think my arguments are so poor why don't you just *ignore* me instead of trying to pull me into some sort of "slug fest" on another forum. As I am not interested in such things.

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I've been accused of some of the same mistakes that Primal was here accused of making.

Although I believe that 'subjectivism' is the broader category, and that 'nihilism, relativism, and solipsism' are subset of it.

I agree with Primal, though, that if the same criticism can be levelled at the principle behind several similar viewpoints, why is it necessary to name all of the separate viewpoints, when naming the broader category of which they are all part, will suffice?

Keith.

Hugo Holbling

Okay, Primal: i'll give it one more go. All i'll do is refer back to my previous post wherein i criticised your "demonstration" of subjectivism being self-defeating. If you weren't so quick to take offence perhaps you could have done this yourself. You may think philosophy should be a comfortable ride with gentlemanly decorum on both sides, but i don't. Nevertheless, i'll try to be civil in this post.

You said:

What i want to know is how you get to this conclusion, since - i know, i must be simple - i don't follow you. Perhaps you aren't the first to realize that subjectivism leads to non-existent things thinkings, but frankly i'm skeptical.

You then said:

I think you're talking about solipsism here, so you should bear in mind that the discussion is on epistemology, not metaphysics. Explain my misunderstanding, if you will. See below, also.

Next you said:

This makes no sense at all to me. If, as you define the subjectivist, "the only basis for knowledge is opinion or belief", why would the subjectivist wish to establish his opinion by "any objective means"? If subjectivism is "a matter of mere subjective belief", so what? Why is there a necessity to establish a belief objectively for a subjectivist?

You said:

Again, why should subjectivism wish to be generalized? How does this refute it? You aren't clear at all.

Then you said:

Here you are discussing epistemological nihilism, or the supposed contradiction in saying "nothing can be known". I think the problem stems from your poor understanding of subjectivism, as i'll explain below.

Next:

So:

P1: Knowledge is subjective
C1: Metaphysical objectivist systems are real
C2: Objective knowledge claims are true.

I doubt if i'm the only one who has problems understanding this strange version of a syllogism. Please demonstrate how the conclusions follow from your premise.

Next:

Wrong! If our subjectivist is saying "x is wrong" by his opinion alone and you demand to know why, he may simply say "because i say so", i.e. in his opinion, which is good enough.

Now:

Here's where you lost your temper at my response, evidently without understanding my point at all, so i'll explain slowly. This argument is of the form "if... then...". Thus our subjectivist only finds himself caught in your paradox if the "if" clause holds. Have you shown that "the objectivist position can be said to be right"? I don't think so. Even if you can, i'll want to now next how your argument makes any sense at all, but let's not get ahead of ourselves; kindly show me that objectivism holds, or else drop this argument.

Almost there:

Do you know anything about scientific methodolgy, or philosophy of science? If so, i suggest you take a long hard look at this comment.

Here's why i called you for writing nonsense: this comment is bewildering. Indulge me by explaining in simpler terms what you mean by "tossing out logic in the realms of truth and existence".

Now, let's tackle this issue of subjectivism. Your definition is:

I'll take issue with this, since i don't agree that this is how the concept of subjectivism is understood in philosophy. I'll offer a definition myself, and you can explain why your version is sound and mine is not.

In epistemology "subjectivism" refers to the restrictions placed upon knowledge by the observer being involved in the observing. In view of the seeming impossibility of separating the two, knowledge must necessarily be restricted to our perceptions and our interpretations thereof.

I remind you that i am not a subjectivist but have offered a definition which i hope is fair. What should be clear is that you are not discussing subjectivism at all. If you disagree, go take a look in a reputable dictionary of philosophy and report on your findings. I suggest Mautner, which unfortunately i don't have to hand (or else i wouldn't impose my ramblings on our readers).

Finally, you say that subjectivism is a subset of relativism, while Keith considers it the other way around. I'll try to make this clear for the both of you: we are discussing subjectivism in epistemology. Solipsism is part of metaphysical subjectivism. Relativism in epistemology is concerned with knowledge being relative to the conceptual scheme employed, denying that any particular scheme should be valued over and above any other. Clearly this is not the same or even a subset of subjectivism, even using your definition.

Now i wonder if you or Keith will care to prove that subjectivism is self-refuting with an argument that is substantially more water-tight than the last.

Over to you...

Kantian

Hello Keith! I am not sure what you mean- could you elucidate and clarify this point, by going in detail on what exactly do they share, and how are these fields are related?

Here's why i am asking: It's possible to be a realist and be a nihilist, or a subjectivist and maintain a form of objective ethics.

Thanks.

Keith Russell

Hugo said:
In epistemology "subjectivism" refers to the restrictions placed upon knowledge by the observer being involved in the observing.

Keith: But, if the observer affects the 'knowledge', then the observer also affected the knowledge that the observer affects the knowledge. So, you can't even know--with anything remotely like certainty--that the observer really does affect the knowledge...

Hugo: In view of the seeming impossibility of separating the two, knowledge must necessarily be restricted to our perceptions and our interpretations thereof.

Keith: Here I have no argument. 'Knowledge' must be an aspect of consciousness; there is no knowledge intrinsic to the universe other than that which is contained within those consciousnesses which observe it.

Hugo: I remind you that i am not a subjectivist but have offered a definition which i hope is fair. What should be clear is that you are not discussing subjectivism at all. If you disagree, go take a look in a reputable dictionary of philosophy and report on your findings. I suggest Mautner, which unfortunately i don't have to hand (or else i wouldn't impose my ramblings on our readers).

Keith: I have a very good philosophical dictionary, but it is in storage at the moment. I plan to look this up the moment I find it, after we move into our new place on 21 October...

Finally, you say that subjectivism is a subset of relativism, while Keith considers it the other way around. I'll try to make this clear for the both of you: we are discussing subjectivism in epistemology. Solipsism is part of metaphysical subjectivism.

Keith: Solipsism is an epistemological stance, too, isn't it? (Wouldn't it have to be?) In fact, wouldn't a solipsist recognize no essential distinction between metaphysics and (their own) epistemology?

Hugo: Relativism in epistemology is concerned with knowledge being relative to the conceptual scheme employed, denying that any particular scheme should be valued over and above any other. Clearly this is not the same or even a subset of subjectivism, even using your definition.

Keith: To the best of my knowledge, I haven't offered a definition of subjectivism, only some general descriptions. Relativism--by your definition above--though, still claims to have somehow gained the knowledge that the process by which we gain all knowledge is not accurate. This is the same contradiction apparent in general subjectivism; the belief that we can know for certain that our means of gaining knowledge is inherently flawed. This is the contradiction inherent in any subjectivist (or relativist) epistemology that I believe makes subjectivism (of any kind) is self-refuting.

Hugo: Now i wonder if you or Keith will care to prove that subjectivism is self-refuting with an argument that is substantially more water-tight than the last.

Keith: The above is the best I can do at the moment.

Hugo, thanks for your patience, and for defining relativism.

Would you perhaps care to explain what you mean by 'subjectivism', so I can decide if I see the same clear distinction that you do?

Thanks,

Keith Russell.

[ October 09, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>

Primal

This was a take on Descartes "I think therefore I am." A claim he believed he could be certain of dispite his earlier claim that principle of logic and math are uncertain. This only holds true if the principle of noncontradiction holds however, and logic is seen as the ultimate authority in what is or is not possible. If this is not the case, then it is possible for a nonexistent thing to think despite how absurd that may sound.

This relates to subjectivism in that the subjectivist is saying that it is the subject, or the will, whatever they mean by subject in any case; who is the ultimate authroity, not logic. In which case absurd notions like a nonexistent thing that can think are true if the subject so wills it.


The two are not so neatly separated. If the subject is the authority of all knowledge and all knowledge is subjective, then saying all reality is subjective is the next step. For to say otherwise is to suppose that one has knowledge of a nonsubjective nature. Of something other then what is inside one's-self. To say this reality is there,which presupposes knowledge of such a reality, whether the subject wills it or not, is to say that the subject is not the ultimate authority in this matter.

This reduces itself to solipsism for to likewise say that another mind exists is to claim knowledge of something external, true whether one wills it or not. And this is ruled out in the subjectivist viewpoint.

His or her wishing to or not has nothing to do with it. The issue is on whether or not he or she can. If they can they have defated themselves, if they cannot they have failed to establish their position in a logical manner. Remember this is all from a logical viewpoint in which logic is the ultimate authroity.

Because that's what logic demands.

How? Well I'm not sure of the exact mechanisms and I don't see how their motives are relavent. Do they try to? Yes, whenever they argue, otheriwse they are merely arguing with themselves. Also, to try and convince me, they must generalize. Also implicit in the claim "all knowledge is subjective" is to suppose knowledge of another's knowledge and another's mind, this usually involves generalizing from one's own mind in subjectivist arguments.


No, nihilists say that there is no knowledge or standards, subjectivists say that such things are ultimately determined by the subject. Both though are a subspecies of relativism.

From the online encyclopedia of philosophy:

<a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cog-rel.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/cog-rel.htm</a>

Note: William James, a famous subjectivist is labeled in thei article as a relativist as well.

Also on an article about the "subjective"

I.E. The article is saying solipsism is merely a subspecies of subjectivism.

<a href="http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/subjecti.htm" target="_blank">http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/subjecti.htm</a>

Again hammering in my point about how these lines drawn between subjectivism,idealism,relativism,nihilism and such are not clean cut but messy, because they are all subspecies of relativism; or if you will; constructivism.


Claim: The subject is the ultimate authrity in matters of truth.

Claim: One subject has said he is not the ultimate authority in matters of truth.

Is the second claim now true or false according to the first claim? To say "true" claim 1 will be usurped. If false, the subject must not then be the ultimate authority and claim 1 again goes under.

1) His opinion is not good enough from a logical or evidentialist viewpoint.

2) His claim infringes on the ultimate authroity of another subject, meaning one of the subjects has less then ultimate authority. In which case, how can it be said that a subject is the ultimate authority at all?

The "if" "then" clause holds even if the subjectivist does not agree to it or nobody makes the claim. This is about possibility, not actuality. The argument reduces subjectivism to absurdity, whether the subjectivist is willing to tread that way or not. Objectivism must hold "if" anyone says it does because the subject vouching for objectivism is an ultimate authroity. This argument also holds even "if" nobody makes the claim (and some have, like Keith and myself) because it is exploring the possibilities of subjectivism and where it can lead if applied consistently, since this leads to absurdity one can cpnclude subjectivism is absurd.

To put it this way, I can say "If the New York is nuked it will be wiped out hence we should not nuke New York." This isn't true only if someone does nuke New York, this is true whether New York is nuked or not. See you are confusing the statement "if" with "only if". I am saying "the possible assertion of objectivism makes subjectivism absurd." i.e. "if objectivist claims can be made, subjectivism is absurd." Not "only if an objectivist makes a claim subjectivism becomes absurd."

This will not prove directly that objectivism holds, only that subjectivism does not. You are too quick to make demands and follow them with expectations by assuming they cannot be met or that your demands were well founded.

The fact is the objectivist would be an ultimate authroity in matter of knowledge, as the objectivist is a subject. Hence since the objectivist claims, "all knowledge is objective". That objectivist would have to be right, in which case subjectivism has led to a paradox.

Do you know how to stay on topic and actually confront an argument instead of throwing out red herrings? If so, I suggest you practice this skill.

Also, don't presume that one cannot know about the differences between philosophy and science while retaining the belief that a philosophical belief demands evidence to be established. Such presumptions lead you astray.

I notice a lot of your "refutations" involve me, more or less "explaining things" to you, as if my failure to do so meant my argument was flawed. Basically I mean abandoning logical standards in favor of some sort of bias or preference.

Ok.

The problem with this? Even the objectivist would agree. To say "objectivist believe that we know via knowledge actually outside our mind." Is a straw man. The definition above is much to vague and uses the term "subjective" in an ambiguous manner, on the one hand reffering to pure bias and opinion, on another to an actual mind. Hence because knowledge is limited to the mind does not make it limited to the subjective. The fact is also that because all knowledge is contained within the subject that all knowledge is determined by the subject's bias or must be about the subject, this is another area where your definition is ambiguous.. The fact that all knowledge is in the mind does not necessarily entail, as you have said ealier:

Such usage of the term would follow from my definition, not yours. My definition works better because it is more comopatible with many subjectivist claims like "all is a matter of opinion and preference" or "true for you but not me" and what the term subjective means in the epistemic sense.

Again I say its not fair because it is far too broad. Who actually says "knowledge exists outside the mind or subject?" Your definition turns all other positions into a straw man and is incompatible with other subjectivist claims about opinion=truth.


Actually this is exactly what is being disputed. Proof surrogates offer little help here.

Did you even read my arguments? I said I was discussing both, mainly because one is so closely conncected to the other. This confusion between me and Keith springs from the fact that there is no "authoritative" definition of subjectivism, such a definition is largely inferred by what claims and lines of argument subjectivists and relativists make. The two are so similiar that it is hard to see which is the main species and which is the subspecies. If anything it lends credit to the claim subjectivism=relativism.

Yes it is, because reltivism is in essence saying all knowledge is a matter of opinion/preference. The subjectivist says the same thing. Both are in essence saying that the subject's preference or will is the ultimate authority in such matters.

And I care to know if you will prove anything by offering any sound argument at all, instead of making bold claims while bringing little support.

Primal

Keith: Perhaps we can come to a compromise on the issue of which is the subspecies of which, subjectivism or relativism. I'm sure we each have our reasons for doing both, but perhaps a better label, so that things don't get too confusing, is to say that both are a subspecies of constructivism, another name for anti-foundationalism, which is a viewpoint saying all axioms are a matter of cultural or personal preferences and none are really "true".

Hugo Holbling

Primal:

I'm going to drop this now; you can make of that what you will. I'll have no more to do with these nonexistent things thinking. I hope our lurkers will make up their own minds. Your argument is so good that i must conceed defeat.



Wrong. We are discussing epistemology, i remind you again. Your "next step" doesn't follow at all. If you claim it does, then prove it.

Wrong. Why do you keep insisting that subjectivism denies knowledge of external things? A subjectivist doesn't deny the possibility of knowledge.

You misunderstand. For your definition of subjectivism, why would anyone care if their position was logical or not? It's all down to opinion, right? You can't enforce logical consistency on your subjectivist and still allow him to believe whatever he likes.

Cute, but try again. Why does logic demand that a subjectivist establish his beliefs objectively?

Wrong. You're going for solipsism again, in metaphysics. Do try to stay with epistemology.

Do you know your Wittgenstein? Epistemological subjectivism does not entail solipsism, so why do you keep insisting that a metaphysical concept refutes an epistemological one?

Wrong. Are you even reading the quotes you post? The relativity of truth is not the same as the denial of the possibility of truth.

Keep your fallacies to yourself, please. I'm not impressed with this argument.

Nice selective culling of that article. For example, you missed the whole section dealing with epistemology!:

The article indeed says what you claim in metaphysics.

Well, why don't you refute constructivism instead and be done with all of them?

This is not subjectivism. Try again.

But why should he care, according to your definition?

This all stems from your misunderstanding of subjectivism, i fear. Go back and look at your article and look for the phrase "ultimate authority".

Wrong! You're not arguing against subjectivism, but some mockery of it that you've dreamt up. Your straw-man is taking a beating, all right, but subjectivism remains unmolested.

How about arguing the converse and killing off objectivism as well?

Ultimate authority again! You're tilting at windmills!

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Do you know how to argue without straw men? Why didn't you confront these very points that i made long ago? Perhaps i offended your vanity? If you'd grown a backbone before i could've killed your straw man argument long ago and saved all this bandwidth.

Thanks for the advice, Dad. You presume to know what subjectivism is but clearly haven't done your homework. Why don't you hit the books and get back to me when you know what you're arguing against? Remember that throwing insults my way will only be returned in kind.

You need to explain things to me because you have a habit of writing what appears to be utter nonsense. In any case, if you're trying to prove something and folk don't understand, it's encumbent upon you to explain more clearly.

Funny how i paraphrased my definition from the very site you quoted! I had a feeling you'd be an online dictionary type, afraid of thinking for yourself or doing your homework!

Your definition works better because you're attacking a straw man!

Who is making such claims? Go back and look at the definition that your selectively quoted.

Wrong. You are attacking a straw man and making a bad job of it. Subjectivism remains undented. In any case, since you are the one making the claim and i am apparently not following your stunning argument, what's the problem? No doubt it's my fundamentalism that's getting in the way. I have other motives for defending subjectivism, perhaps?

So you say, but that doesn't make it so. If you want to discuss metaphysics, open a new thread (please don't, for all our sakes).

Funny how silly philosophers use different terms. Since you're demolishing subjectivism so brilliantly, would you care to prove the equivalence and thus put pay to relativism as well?

Wrong! That "ultimate authority" again. Relativism is concerned with not elevating one conceptual scheme over and above another. You're going to need to do your homework here as well.

Nice try, but no cigar. You'll not reverse the burden of proof on my watch. You claimed that subjectivism is self-refuting, so you have to prove it. All i'm doing is knocking your "arguments" down. I'm not claiming that subjectivism is sound, but only that your thinking is not.

Put up or shut up, Primal. Prove your claim.

Keith:

These kind of objections are seductive but useless. I suggest the study of semiotics.

If we use signs to describe "reality" we have no way to be certain of their correspondence; it is trivial to then shrug and say that nothing can be proven or known with certain, as this is a necessary limitation of the semiotic system employed. I think your confusion lies in misunderstanding that such a statement concerning the limitation of a methodology (or any methodology) is simply that and not an epistemological claim. Such a situation in philosophy of science does not stop the scientific process, wherein a Popperian happily seeks knowledge while understanding that none of his theories is ever proven absolutely.

Perhaps it's time to leave behind this love affair with certainty?

How are you getting on with that link, by the way? Is the criticism of a satisfactory level?

[ October 10, 2002: Message edited by: Hugo Holbling ]</p>