Subjectivism
Amido
I am trying to find some basic texts which outline the various arguments
between subjectivism and its opposite (which I suppose is realism?).
Could anybody point me in the direction of such a text, or suggest a website
with this information?
Thank you in advance,
Amido
FiSH
"Amido" <amido@*no spam*mutate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg3k67$6fc$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
Immortalist
"Amido" <amido@*no spam*mutate.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cg3k67$6fc$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> I am trying to find some basic texts which outline the various arguments
> between subjectivism and its opposite (which I suppose is realism?).
>
> Could anybody point me in the direction of such a text, or suggest a website
> with this information?
>
Just poking around in Google for a moment got this;
Simply stated, subjectivism is the idea that our knowledge is shaped by our
perception, and in many cases limited to it, whereas objectivism is the idea that
the things we perceive are independent of our perception of them.
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/A2%20Subjects/Ethics/subjectivism.htm
Beginnings in Hume
David Hume (1711-1776) was the most important English-speaking philosopher of the
"modern period" in philosophy (roughly 1400-1900). He was an empiricist who ended
up being skeptical about the possibility of genuine knowledge from experience.
Hume’s argument for subjectivism is a disjunctive syllogism, so it’s valid (its
logic is correct):
P1: Moral judgments originate either in sensation (impressions with external
origin) or feelings (impressions with internal origin).
P2: They don’t originate in sensation ("Is" does not imply " ought").
C: Therefore, they originate in feelings.
Logical Positivism was an influential movement in early 20th- century philosophy.
The logical positivists (Herbert Feigl, Moritz Schlick, Rudolph Carnap, A. J.
Ayer, et al.) advocated the verificationist principle of meaning, redefined the
enterprise of philosophy as the search for a logically perfect language, rejected
metaphysics, and accepted Hume’s argument for subjectivism.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/SUBJ.html
http://progressiveliving.org/definition_of_defined/definition_of_subjectivism_defined.htm
-----------------------------------------
Objectivism (capitalized) is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy: a
philosophy for living on earth, grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling
its adherents to facilitate interaction with the natural world.
Objectivism has two common themes. The primary theme is the sanctity of the
individual human person. In Rand's own words:
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his
own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as
his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
The other theme, from which we get the name "Objectivism", is Rand's trichotomy
among the "intrinsic", the "subjective", and the "objective". Neither concepts
nor values are "intrinsic" to external reality, but neither are they merely
"subjective" (by which Rand means "arbitrary" rather than "subject-dependent").
Rather, Rand contends that properly formed concepts and values are objective in
the sense that they meet the specific needs of the individual human person. This
theme thus follows from the first.
Objectivism bases its metaphysics on the Law of Identity (Aristotle's "A is A"),
which Objectivism understands to have several fundamental implications about the
nature of reality and its relation to mind. In Objectivist thought, "A is A"
means in part that "existence exists" and "consciousness is conscious".
Everything that exists is said to have identity, by which Objectivism means more
than tautological self-identity. Everything that exists is said to have a
specific nature (consisting of various properties or characteristics); "to be"is
to be something in particular. Moreover, Objectivism holds that the properties
and characteristics in question must exist each in a specific measure or degree;
in this respect "identity" also means finitude. According to Objectivism, then,
everything that exists has a specific finite nature.
The nature of objective reality is also said to be independent of mind.
Objectivism emphasizes this point by distinguishing between two metaphysical
premises: the "primacy of existence" premise and the"primacy of consciousness"
premise. According to the first, existence is logically or metaphysically prior
to consciousness; the second, vice versa.
http://www.informationblast.com/Objectivist_philosophy.html
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/
---------------------------------------------
realism (philosophy)
In philosophy, the theory that universals (properties such as ‘redness’) have an
existence independent of the human mind. Realists hold that the essence of things
is objectively given in nature, and that our classifications are not arbitrary.
As such, realism is contrasted with nominalism, the theory that universals are
merely names or general terms.
More generally, realism is any philosophical theory that emphasizes the existence
of some kind of things or objects, in contrast to theories that dispense with the
things in question in favour of words, ideas, or logical constructions. In
particular, the term stands for the theory that there is a reality quite
independent of the mind. In this sense, realism is opposed to idealism, the
theory that only minds and their contents exist.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0011674.html
THE PHILOSOPHY OF NEO-REALISM
Introduction
In opposition to Idealism as well as to Intuitionism and Pragmatism, a decided
realistic movement arose in England and America. According to the Neo-Realists,
the idealistic principle which states that consciousness constitutes reality is
false; so, also, the statement of Pragmatism which makes man the measure of
things. Reality of its own nature is extra-mental, having no relation to any
subject.
The Neo-Realistic thinkers understand reality as a being made up of a plurality
of simple and unchangeable entities.
http://radicalacademy.com/adiphilnewrealism.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=realism+idealism+philosophy
Robert Cohen
objective, which is difficult to be in the real world though one ought to at
least try to be
meanwhile: i do not understood "objectivism," except that ayn rand composes
conspiracy theory, THE CAPTAINS & THE KINGS, and is probably a very big fan of
gary cooper
andy-k
<snip>
> The nature of objective reality is also said to be independent of
> mind. Objectivism emphasizes this point by distinguishing between two
> metaphysical premises: the "primacy of existence" premise and
> the"primacy of consciousness" premise. According to the first,
> existence is logically or metaphysically prior to consciousness; the
> second, vice versa.
>
> http://www.informationblast.com/Objectivist_philosophy.html
The link goes on to say that:
"Objectivism accepts the "primacy of existence" premise and offers in its
support the proposition that consciousness is always consciousness of
something that is in some way logically prior to the state of consciousness
itself."
i.e. -- Objectivism offers support for its premise of the primacy of
existence through the proposition that what exists is more primary than
consciousness? Isn't this "begging the question"?
andy-k
> I am trying to find some basic texts which outline the various
> arguments between subjectivism and its opposite (which I suppose is
> realism?).
Descartes "laid down the principle, that those substances which are the
subjects enjoying conscious experiences, provide the primary data for
philosophy, namely, themselves as in the enjoyment of such experience. This
is the famous subjectivist bias which entered into modern philosophy
through Descartes. In this doctrine Descartes undoubtedly made the greatest
philosophical discovery since the age of Plato and Aristotle. For his
doctrine directly traverses the notion that the proposition, 'This stone is
grey', expresses a primary form of known fact from which metaphysics can
start its generalizations. If we go back to the subjective enjoyment of
experience, the type pf primary starting-point is 'my experience of this
stone as grey'."
(A. N. Whitehead, "Process and Reality", 222[241]).
"[W]ith the advent of Cartesian subjectivism, the substance-quality
category has lost all claim to metaphysical primacy; and, with the
deposition of substance-quality, we can reject the notion of individual
substances, each with its private world of qualities and sensations [...]
Descartes' discovery on the side of subjectivism requires balancing by an
'objectivist' principle as to the datum for experience."
(ibid, 224[243]).
Immortalist
"andy-k" <spam.free@last> wrote in message
news:yGmVc.210$Rw4...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
> Immortalist wrote:
> <snip>
> > The nature of objective reality is also said to be independent of
> > mind. Objectivism emphasizes this point by distinguishing between two
> > metaphysical premises: the "primacy of existence" premise and
> > the"primacy of consciousness" premise. According to the first,
> > existence is logically or metaphysically prior to consciousness; the
> > second, vice versa.
> >
> > http://www.informationblast.com/Objectivist_philosophy.html
>
> The link goes on to say that:
>
> "Objectivism accepts the "primacy of existence" premise and offers in its
> support the proposition that consciousness is always consciousness of
> something that is in some way logically prior to the state of consciousness
> itself."
>
Pretty good and seemingly dependable theory. But as Kant would say;
"though We cannot know these objects
as things in themselves, we must yet
be in position at least to think them
as things in themselves;"
"otherwise we should be landed in the
absurd conclusion that there can be
appearance without anything that
appears."
Page 26 (CPR)
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/
http://www.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Philosophy/Kant/cpr/02pref-b.htm#026
but this doesn't prove that they exist.
block
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:spmdnRl8-sk...@comcast.com...
> "otherwise we should be landed in the
> absurd conclusion that there can be
> appearance without anything that
> appears."
But isn't this the best way? Then if anything bad/dangerous/hostile did
ever come into existence, we could deny that it existed! Far better than
proving things are real, real, and very real. Even the best things now
might be the worst things later.
Nils-Erik Forsberg
Almost everything said here is subjectivistic - i.e. habitual valuing.
Non habitual valuing, i.e. realistick valuing, is valuing based on
reality, the one and the same existence we all live in whatever
different place, time, habit.
www.reality.org.uk/book/ur.htm
Look at that.
Nils F
Immortalist
"block" <not....@REMOVEntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:o5CVc.19$UM...@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
Why make up excuses for our limitations? We could just live with them.
>
>