K
- Status
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
I don’t believe in Subjectivism because…
Logic is objective by definition
The subjectivist used logic to describe reality
Therefore
Even the subjectivist assumes an objective reality
How would your book respond to this argument?
K
Kidkernow
Guest
Hello.
Thanks for the post, and your interest.
I can’t speak for all of the different authors of the book - as it is an edited volume of papers. The easiest thing to do would be to get a copy and read what they have to say.
As for what I think about your question. The terms ‘Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ are, of course, some of the most slippery in the history of philosophy. By ‘Subjectivism’ you seem to mean the idea that logic is simply the creation of the individual subject, or some such related view. I take it you’re posing this question because Kierkegaard is commonly associated (and quite rightly, I think) with a view of subjectivity as essentally private to the individual.
As you’re argument goes, I think it is both true and sound - but you’d need to be careful - as it’s easiy to start making dubous assumptions about the nature of logic (indeed, putting it like this makes it sound like it has ‘a nature’ - which in itself might be dubious). Logic is indeed independent of individual subject, as it is not up to me whether or not what I think is valid. These rules are independent of me, and so are ‘objective’ in this sense. However, it would be wrong to think that they’re independent of you and me - which is to say the community in which they have their home and from which they derive their existence.
Concepts, and the logic laws that determinate their conbinatoral possibility, are also subject to change - and so it is wrong to think of them as ‘objective’ in the sense of existing in some hard and fast way independently of us in some metaphysical realm.
So too - it would be pointless to try and chart all of the rules of logic - as Wittgenstein said on this point ‘Logic must look after itself’.
Just some thoughts.
Thanks for the post, and your interest.
I can’t speak for all of the different authors of the book - as it is an edited volume of papers. The easiest thing to do would be to get a copy and read what they have to say.
As for what I think about your question. The terms ‘Subjective’ and ‘Objective’ are, of course, some of the most slippery in the history of philosophy. By ‘Subjectivism’ you seem to mean the idea that logic is simply the creation of the individual subject, or some such related view. I take it you’re posing this question because Kierkegaard is commonly associated (and quite rightly, I think) with a view of subjectivity as essentally private to the individual.
As you’re argument goes, I think it is both true and sound - but you’d need to be careful - as it’s easiy to start making dubous assumptions about the nature of logic (indeed, putting it like this makes it sound like it has ‘a nature’ - which in itself might be dubious). Logic is indeed independent of individual subject, as it is not up to me whether or not what I think is valid. These rules are independent of me, and so are ‘objective’ in this sense. However, it would be wrong to think that they’re independent of you and me - which is to say the community in which they have their home and from which they derive their existence.
Concepts, and the logic laws that determinate their conbinatoral possibility, are also subject to change - and so it is wrong to think of them as ‘objective’ in the sense of existing in some hard and fast way independently of us in some metaphysical realm.
So too - it would be pointless to try and chart all of the rules of logic - as Wittgenstein said on this point ‘Logic must look after itself’.
Just some thoughts.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Hi Kidkernow,
call me Psycho if you wish,
I hope I didn’t come off rude,
but I would like to discuss this further.
It seems to me that existence itself is:
unchanging
objective
independently of us in some metaphysical realm
and serves as an essential principle of logic
What do you think about existence itself?
K
Kidkernow
Guest
Hello again.
It seems to me that this is now a different topic.
You’re right that logic must make presuppositions about existence. Logic doesn’t directly tell us what does and doesn’t exist - but (given certain assumptions and the rules of inference) what must be true of existing things.
I’m not sure what I think about ‘existence itself’, because I’m not sure what I’m being asked to sign up to. Logic must certainly assume that particular things exist - I’m not sure it requires assumptions about existence per se. Sounds like you’re making some claim about a metaphysical monism.
It seems to me that this is now a different topic.
You’re right that logic must make presuppositions about existence. Logic doesn’t directly tell us what does and doesn’t exist - but (given certain assumptions and the rules of inference) what must be true of existing things.
I’m not sure what I think about ‘existence itself’, because I’m not sure what I’m being asked to sign up to. Logic must certainly assume that particular things exist - I’m not sure it requires assumptions about existence per se. Sounds like you’re making some claim about a metaphysical monism.
I
ilovekittens
Guest
That may be your experience of existence. Mine is much different, in fact much the opposite of everything you posit. The meaning I find in my life -my experience of existence - is wholly removed from the cold, detached, “logical” world of philosophy. This is not to say that that sort of philosophy is without merit, but it is apples and oranges when trying to reconcile the truth of subjectivity from the truth of traditional philosophy.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Thank you ilovekittens
I think this is an important point
Maybe I should reform my question.
Why do people value logic?
K
Kidkernow
Guest
I think that people like logic because you can’t do much without it.
I thought some members might be interested to know that we now have two issues of Acta Kierkegaardiana.
Kierkegaard and Great Philosophers
and
Kierkegaard and Christianity
Regards,
I thought some members might be interested to know that we now have two issues of Acta Kierkegaardiana.
Kierkegaard and Great Philosophers
and
Kierkegaard and Christianity
Regards,
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
People “do” a lot of things that are illogical
But thankfully
Through our actions and experience
Those errors are corrected
Like abortionists
Who later renounce
abortion
Unlike abortionists
Who don’t have a proper respect
For the human body…
Does anyone know,
Is it subjective when life begins?
And how do you know?
G
GreenLantern
Guest
I like some of Kierkergaard’s ideas and his idea of authoring several of his works by using personas that didn’t nessesarily actually propogate his views.
- Status