|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Subjectivism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Can a reference to empiricism be made here? Rationalism contrasts with empiricism historically. So does objective reality. Subjectivism could be seen as an extension of empiricism. Unfortunately, people throw religion in with subjectivism which is totally backwards. It is rationalism and religion that are connected, such that rationalism provides a priori objects and religion provides the god that created those objects. The way terms are used today without understanding their historical context, it's no wonder things get muddied. McDivitt Oct 04 2006
Is any of the stuff in the criticism section really criticism of subjectivism? Earlier in the article it states: "This holding should not be confused with the stance that "all is illusion" or that "there is no such thing as reality." " The criticism section seems to contradict this, saying that subjectivism means, because no one was present to experience the inside of the volcano, it must not exist. It just seems like a straw-man argument to me. Should it be removed? Tudwell 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it should be removed. Subjectivism involves perception and the idea reality is created by the action of perceiving it. The criticism converts subjective to objective. Subjectively, the reason the camera is showing pictures is merely that the pictures are perceived McDivitt Oct 04 2006
Ethical subjectivism is also called 'moral relativism'. I do not believe this is correct. While ethical subjectivism is a metha-etical standpoint, moral relativism is a normative one. They are not equvialent. There's a slight chance I might be wrong so I'll leave it up to someone else to decide. /Popperipopp 16:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
They conceive, however, that the nature of reality as related to a given consciousness unit is created and governed by that consciousness.
A realist would not regard that as reality in any proper sense of the terms -- after all , imagination is also created and governed by consciousness, so the reality/imagination distinction has vanished.
Of course, the fact that this is a dubious argument does not mean it is not notable, so I have only added a citation tag.1Z 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
One version of the idea proposed above (ethical subjectivism) is that nothing is innately good or bad, right or wrong. Radical subjectivism is sometimes described as 'anything goes', although describing it as such ignores the essential nature of subjectivism, and actually describes moral nihilism. What it really does is address the limited scope of the subject, acknowledging the truth that exists within its system or context, but not beyond that, claiming, context independent, absolutes.
The idea that there is no 'innate', 'absolute' or more correctly, 'external' right or wrong, doesn't negate the point of view of the subject who can see things as being positive or negative. Subjective, non-innate, right and wrong are simply recognized for what they are, subject dependent. In this worldview, laws may exist but the ultimate authority, and responsibility, is given to the individual.
I have removed this because 1 it deals with ethical subjectivism, which is a separate section 2 it doesn't deal with "radical subjectivism" as such -- RS means a more extreme and sweeping form of subjectivism, not one that deals only with ethics 3 it attemps to deal with argument and a counterargument, although there are other pages, such as moral relativism which go into the details. 4It seems to be a personal opinion.
1Z 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody else think the bit about panpsychism is totally incoherent? Even if panpsychism were noteworthily related to subjectivism (it is not), the section makes no sense. A camera on the rocking side of a volcano? What does that even mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)