Subjectivism: A Bolt-Hole

By -
"The young Socrates, like so many philosophers in distress, takes refuge in a limited ad hoc subjective idealism: perhaps, he says, forms are only thoughts. Parmenides with one turn of the wrist pulls him out of that bolt-hole..." R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, p. 64

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell4:49 PM

    It struck me that subjectivism, at least of the moral kind, doesn't really make any sense: to call it subjective feels like it can't be called morality. Likewise, I realized thatit seems if morality didn't exist, then words like "permissible" and "impermissible" would be meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown5:52 PM

    Samson,

    Subjectivism can be really tricky to understand. I don't think that "to call [morality] subjective feels like it can't be called morality.... [it] seems as if morality doesn't exist." Subjectivism actually doesn't imply that morality doesn't exist, nor does it even hint that it doesn't. Subjectivism is a meta-ethical theory (that is, it deals with the nature of "what 'good' is" rather than "is this thing 'good'?"). Subjectivism does state that morality exists - it is just that what constitutes the goodness or badness of something is subjective, not objective. Michael Huemer, in his extraordinary book "Ethical Intuitionism", uses sexiness as a good example of the point trying to be made here; what each individual finds to be sexy is dependent on the psychological responses that they give towards the girl in question. You might think that large women are sexy, but I could easily respond "I don't; they are lacking in the symmetry that I find in female athletes." We are both experiencing the psychological attraction that is described by the term "sexiness", it is just that because this "sexiness" is dependent on our psychological - or, subjective - responses, it cannot be objective. For something to be objective, it seems as though it must not be dependent on the subjective preferences or psychological response that something has towards it. Idealists, of course, would likely rephrase this (here is looking at you, Gene, to give a suggestion or correction) as "what it means for something to be objective is not that it is wholly outside the realm of experience and perception; it is just that these experiences and perceptions are more (or, even, completely) accessible to others despite their intentions or inclinations."

    Hope that this helps.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more