|
| quote: | | I think a big mistake subjectivists and solipsists make is to equate objectivism with absolutism |
Some may, perhaps, but most are smart enough to know the difference.
Presuming a dualistic universe (which I am not necessarily agreeing with here), the subjective represents the internal world (the mind), the objective represents the external world (the rest of the totality of "what-is"). Absolutism, on the other hand, marks a position of completeness of certainty, to the point where it is impossible for this "certainty" to be refuted. Therefore, one who advocates some form of "absolutism" is of the mindset that their belief is "complete in its certainty", and "true" beyond any level of doubt.
However, in everyday speech, "subjective" is a rather dirty word (usually used to denote a ambiguity or prejudice) whereas "objective" usually has a connetation involving the transcendence of one's subjective stance. Thus, in being objective, in everyday speak, we usually mean that we are thinking beyond our own inevitably prejediced position, and attempting to view a problem or a stance from a position beyond our own. We could then quite easily link this "transcendence of our own subjectivity" to a position of, and our conception of, "the absolute". Thus, the absolute in this sense, is to approach any problem or stance from a position above ourselves, and attempt to view the situation as an impartial observer so as to see the "truth" as clearly and as seperately from our own subjective prejudices as possible.
This, in my opinion anyway, is how we conceive of the "absolute" in everyday speak. This conception of the absolute, I might add, seems quite similar to our conception of "God" - but I'll ignore that tangent for now.
However, philosophically speaking, it is impossible to transcend the subjective. Regardless of how hard you cogitate, it is impossible to "go beyond" our humanity, and, much more, it is impossible to "go beyond" ourselves. That is, the totality of what we experience - and experience is, unless someone can suggest otherwise, the basis for all knowledge - must first be filtered through the subjective before it can be "realised". Thus, from this perspective, the subjective is all we can know, and, from this stance, the subjective becomes absolute. It is absolute, quite simply, because we can know with completeness of certainty that that which we experience on the subjective level does, in fact, exist. Existence, or the modality of existence (essence), beyond the subjective is impossible to imagine, bound as we are to our own subjectivity. Thus, my conception of the ball being "hard" and "yellow" is absolute, where as the independant existence of the ball, as a thing-in-itself, is a question of objectivity, which, as it turns out, means - that as we can never conceive of anything from an "objective" stance - that we can throw doubt on its objective existence, making its existence on this level anything but absolute. Thus, actually, if anything, the problem with the solopsist position is that it refuses to associate the absolute and the objective, instead offering the stance that subjectivism is the only means of acheiving the absolute.
| quote: | | Another leap they make is to say that if person X cannot be absolutely certain of everything, he cannot be absolutely certain of anything. |
Beyond that which we "know" (depedning on what you mean by the word "know") subjectively, no, if can deny the "absoluteness" of any one thing that exists as a thing-in-itself, then - assuming existence is uniform (i.e. there's only one possible mode of "existence") - then we can use this doubt to deny the "absoluteness" of any other thing-in-itself that exists in the same respect, and is perceived or experienced in the same respect.
Am I succeeding in confusing you all yet? 
| quote: | | This creates the false dillema of absolutism or relativism. What's wrong with saying some things can be known with absolute certainty and some thing cannot? |
With the first sentence you wish to dispel an unnessecary dichotemy, but with the second you advocate it. 
In saying that "some things can be known with absolute certainty and some thing cannot" you are still setting up the concept of absolutism or relativism. That is, by default, and as we understand the terms, absoluteness depends on a certain "thing" being certain and complete in-and-of itself, without needing to be related to any other "thing" to ascertain it veracity. If something is "relatively" true, then it can be true only if some other "thing" is assumed to be true as well. For instance, the theory of evolution can be correct - and can only be correct - if we assume natural selection to be true. If we could demonstrate - or, even, if it is possible to demonstrate - that natural selection is false, then evolution is falsifiable, dependant on the truth of another concept for its own realistion of "truth", and is thus not "true" in-and-of itself. We can show virtually all knowledge - in this respect - to be "relative", as it is all dependant on the truth of another concept to be considered true itself. It's all relational, or, as Einstein said "everything is relative".
Of course there are differing degrees of "relative truth" - that is, we could say hypothetically, the strength of a relative truth is inversely proportional to the sum of all things that could make it false. Thus, we could say that the existence of the "hard, yellow ball" I mentioned before is of a higher standard of "relative truth" (as the only thing, really, which could disprove the existence of the ball is if I were to assume that me senses were misleading me) than the theory of evolution (as there are an incredibly high number of things that could render this theory falsifiable).
And no, that doesn't make me a creationist. 
| quote: | | Such a statement would go against the very heart of subjectivist standards mainly, that perceptions are reality, in which case perceptions of an objective world are an objective world. |
Once again, "subjectivism" (or the type of subjectivism I'm talking about here) makes no attempt to claim that an "external world" does not exist, rather only that we can never know - with absolute certainty - the modality or essence of this external world.
It is possible to reject the external world as a consequence of this stance, I suppose, but in doing so you would be required to explain where these experiences do indeed come from.
| quote: | | So basically if someone said his observations were objective or observed an objective reality he'd be wrong? |
Given my previous definitions, yes, he would be wrong.
We may "experience" the external world, but it's still entirely on a subjective level. Have you ever experienced anything from a position that transcends your own existence?
| quote: | | The issue is not whether the experience or belief requires a subject but whether the experience or belief can be said to reflect what exists outside our imaginations or beliefs i.e. the issue is over whether or not we can know anything about the outside world or if the outside world exists. |
But it amounts to the same thing.
I'm not denying that an external world exists, or claiming that we can never "know" anything about it, just that we can never "know" these things with absolute certainty as a result of our subjectivist stance.
I do not believe that "absolute certainty" is necessary, mind, in terms of considering the things that we know to be "true", just simply that there must be doubt cast upon all that we claim to know before we can arrive at any form of certainty whatsoever.
Am I making any sense?
|
i really must be more random to surprise myself 
