peter m asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 1 month ago

How to identify (known, fake) "subjective philosophy" better? Here on this more-modern-medium ?

3 Answers

  • 1 month ago

    j153e's answer here is one detailed subjectivist philosophy answers I refer to.

    Known bad philosophy abounds in the forms of bad & quite useless "subjective, relative, historicist philosophies" etcetera.

    2 weeks ago I wrote, " ..most of my time here in this category has been spent outlining KNOWN bad philosophy -that is subjective or relative philosophy & its derivatives (like historicism) - …& some time ago it was quite clear that a smaller or larger part of j153e's whole approach was one of subjectivist nonsense.

    I also wrote that it would be better if he stuck with writing (only) about faith & religious philosophy which he frequently mixes with pure philosophy (of his own relativist,

    convoluted kind)…".

    I went on to say that together with his own version of bad subjectivism j153e

    also includes as standard (standard for Wikipedia, his other go-to "bible"

    so to speak) the highly speculative & irrational "logic" called  -induction- 

    or inductive logic. Which can-be-shown to be misleading to the relevance

    & rationality of philosophy (& science also).

    I stand by all that..& more.

    Because of technical difficulties I didn't finish with the above.

    What needed to be said was that its quite obvious just why j153's whole

    philosophy approach fails (although I admit it has come to-a-head, with

    my Question above on HOW TO Identify (bad & useless) Subjective


    His philosophy approach fails because & over an extended period of time

    -probably at least the YEARS j153e has been active in this category-

    he has been unwilling to properly CRITICISE others  -not just my-

    answers ; & as time went on & on this began to "bug me" more &

    more..not least because if you know anything about my past open

    User History you should know that I continue what was taught-to-me

    in a unique (undergrad) University course, called the History of Ideas


    That aside & to cut a long story short  realised the reason that j wouldn't

    or couldn't (effectively, philosophically) criticise not just mine but other's

    efforts here...

    And that was because of his deeply held faith-based belief... it was his

    religious belief which had likely stunted his own unique ability to do the

    more secular business called "philosophy".

    Even that aside though, the fatal and irreparable flaw in his whole philosophy

    approach has been & continues-to-be his (& others) reliance on the stupefying

    rather ancient Fad of accepting willy-nilly (= lock, stock & barrel) the occult 

    & fictional proposed logic called "inductive logic". And here's an example of

    its stupefying & ridiculous consequent...


  • j153e
    Lv 7
    1 month ago

    If anyone is honest, sincere, and able to understand the limits of a given perspective, then she may co-relate to the issue you have painted as "already-known" "fake" (aka "bad") "subjective philosophy."  If one "knows fake subjectivism," it might be genuinely helpful to give one's clear definitions of same, with examples.  To avoid the cliche or fallacy of circular reasoning, clear examples would obviously be helpful re developing methods to better detect such erring.  Drawing from the example of so-called "fake objectivism," noting the black-and-white fallacy of labeling one's unclarified, hence in actuality "subjectivist," objectivism would be an example of a "detection process."

    (It is thus likewise the case that such an one, if clear on her terms, may also learn to identify false objective philosophy.)  The erring proclivity which tends to reductively claim all of thought and even truth unto its positivist, atom-focused counting and manipulation, even for personal hobby-horses or championed causes such as global warming (whether the cause be true or not, the psychology of both categories of "fake philosophy" is similar), is symptomatic of what has been termed existential false consciousness.

    Thus, to know one's psychology or self is key to unlocking the underlying error vis-a-vis "truth," which latter involves points of epistemology an of ontology, of awareness and discernment of various types of data or evidence, and of awareness of self as operant in the spectrum of being.

    If one is condemning the Other as inferior, e.g. the inferior materialist or the inferior spiritualist, that psychologistic bigotry as applied onto the Other may or may not be constructively critical, but if the bigotry of selfishness vis-a-vis seeking to claim the superiority of one's position against the Other-as-enemy is not recognized, then the self makes little progress, and perhaps suffers regress, depending on the intensity of the bigotry. 

    Therefore, with one's getting of "identifying Other" as wrong/inferior/fake, getting understanding of self re good faith and good will is profitable.  Imho one begins there, and the first step thereafter is understanding of categories as not necessarily black-and-white (e.g., leading to splittist condemnations of polarities or straw categories such as subjective vs objective, rationalist and empiricist, Romantic vs Enlightenment, modern vs post-modern, etc., etc.).  The second step is the continued cultivation of one's own ability to perceive verity, both per transparency of self, and of truth-claims of any kind.  The third step is to with good faith develop clear definitions of terms used by various positions in one's posited domain of inquiry.  The fourth step is to examine various systems' axiomizations and points of Incompleteness.  While one is not leaving one's awareness at the door of perception, to begin disingenuously, and/or with a prior agenda, and/or even trivially, and not having developed applied fundamental steps of awareness such as the one + four proffered above, is to waste time simply bolstering perhaps-insecure egotism, and the "righteously angry (typically) young man or woman" is then usually at best risible.  Honesty re self, good faith, good will, and lovingkindness are important ingredients.

    If, for example, one is focused on detecting false or fake philosophy of the subjectivist type, presumably one has mastered the above steps, and is for some good reason seeking to correct errors in that more limited domain.  If one has no clear, good, definitional, axiomatic and complete awareness and understanding of that segment which is (circularly?) labeled "subjective"--and the greater set of awareness of which such putative "fake subjectivity" is erroneously derived from--one is back to square one:  needful of developing one's own good faith, good will, understanding of self, and doing so with lovingkindness and tact.  If one is aspiring to be a "doctor of philosophy," the phrases "Do no harm" and "Physician, heal thyself" (not to mention, in this context, "Thou hypocrite" and "...sin is crouching at the door...but you must rule over it") apply.

    It may be worth remarking that great, genuine, and/or true thinkers/philosophers generally begin with such clarity of awareness (Pythagoras, Plato, Plotinus, unto modern and present-day Descartes, Kant, Husserl, Whitehead, et al.), rather than finding a cause that permits one's overlooking of one's own partially-developed awareness--a kind of "bandwagon" or "coattails" approach, the personally-blindfolded seeking dominance in order to (mis)lead others--that compromises genuine discourse, which "coattails approach" all too often does not even reflect accurately the bandwagon one is coat-tailing: inferiority masked by superiority--a typical complex often driven by what Hegel identified as the superior master seeking to deny the other part of the personality. In other words, black and white splittism is usually indicative of a personality seeking to dominate an Otherness which threatens in one manner or another its own less-than-whole position.

    As a balance, for purposes of noting how objectivity is actually pursued, along with e.g. Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, would note the following awareness developing among many in the physics community: and which process, while simplifying accurately calculations in the Feynman mode, also indicates that space and time may not be the fundamental categories of physis (albeit, at the human level, space and time shaping organs of perception per Kant's classical understanding).

    Ignorance of basic and fundamental processes in philosophy does not per se justify a personal bias, whether dressed up as spiritualism, objectivism, reductionism, logical positivism, etc.

  • Anonymous
    1 month ago

    Have you taken your meds today?

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.