Popular Post christopher3393 Posted December 10, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 10, 2019 Just an FYI: There is no such term as "radical subjectivism" in philosophy or any other academic field or significant thinker that I have been able to find in several years of occasionally researching this. It is, in my opinion, a fabrication of a forum member here, yet it is used as if it were a recognized concept. If I'm wrong, I'm happy to be pointed to the sources I've missed. But I strongly suspect it is b.s. If this member would like to share his background in study that led him to this, we could discuss his interpretations of these sources. My best guess is that they rely on a reading of a theological movement called "Radical Orthodoxy". If anyone wants to look into it, I suspect they'll find some similarities. When it comes to this kind of grand cultural criticism that this member engages, I do wonder if his background and experience is sufficient to be making such strong claims about what members and the owner/moderator need to do to get woke. Apologies for the OT. wgscott and The Computer Audiophile 1 1 Link to comment
Popular Post christopher3393 Posted December 11, 2019 Popular Post Share Posted December 11, 2019 16 hours ago, Ralf11 said: How hard did you look? https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319438764 I stand corrected ( and reminded) and would need to qualify my statement above. This source is an outlier, but nevertheless: On 4/9/2018 at 3:52 PM, christopher3393 said: Well, I did a little digging and found a few things, some familiar, some new to me. I do think they are relevant to the discussion, albeit somewhat circuitously at times with lots of labor involved. Here are just 3 examples. There are plenty of others. Kant's Radical Subjectivism: Perspectives on the Transcendental Deduction Dennis Schulting Here's a review that provides a very good summary: https://virtualcritique.wordpress.com/2017/11/07/robert-watt-on-dennis-schultings-kants-radical-subjectivism/ This also raises the interesting issue of "epistemic humility", which one could simply define this way: "If our knowledge of the world is always filtered, interpreted and (in important ways) ‘constructed’ by our a priori faculties then we can never know things as they truly are and we are forced to accept a degree of humility with respect to our ‘scientific’ pronouncements." German Idealism: The Struggle against Subjectivism, 1781–1801 Frederick Beiser A review that emphasizes "the struggle against subjectivism": https://commons.pacificu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1137&context=eip Aesthetics and subjectivity: from Kant to Nietzsche Andrew Bowie From the intro: "The new focus of philosophy on subjectivity established by Kant accompanies the complex and contradictory changes wrought by ‘modernity’: the rapid expansion of capitalism, the emergence of modern individualism, the growing success of scientific method in manipulating nature for human ends, the decline of traditional, theologically legitimated authorities, and the appearance, together with aesthetics as a branch of philosophy, of ‘aesthetic autonomy’, the idea that works of art entail freely produced rules which do not apply to any other natural object or human product. From being a part of philosophy concerned with the senses, and not necessarily with beauty – the word derives from the Greek ‘aisthánesthai’, ‘perceive sensuously’ – the new subject of ‘aesthetics’ now focuses on the significance of natural beauty and of art. Reflection on aesthetics does not, though, just involve a revival of Plato’s thoughts about beauty as the symbol of the good. The crucial new departure lies in the way aesthetics is connected to the emergence of subjectivity as the central issue in modern philosophy, and this is where the relevance of this topic to contemporary concerns becomes apparent." On 4/9/2018 at 4:00 PM, Ralf11 said: Let's get some things straight: - space and time are NOT forms of human sensibility - the mind certainly alters the structure of human experience, but we have other ways to figure out what's happening, has happened, and what will happen I'd ask a couple of my friends with PhDs in philosophy for more of the cant, but they are too busy doing secretarial work... The problem remains: even this use does not support the member's use of this term. Schulting contrasts radical subjectivism with bad subjectivism. According to bad subjectivism, “what we know is true relative merely to our own perspective, because that is just how we are psychologically (or culturally, or epistemologically, etc.) disposed” (pp. 16–17). Bad subjectivism tells us that the only facts we can know are the facts according to our particular psychological/cultural/epistemological framework. We can know, for example, that objects are spatiotemporal according to our framework, but we cannot know that objects are spatiotemporal simpliciter. In other words, we cannot know whether our framework corresponds to reality. By contrast, radical subjectivism tells us that “subjective agency is first constitutive of objectivity, so that there would not even be anything objective, any nature, without the subjective forms of the understanding” (p. 17). It tells us that “objectivity itself is dependent on our forms of cognition, contrary to the ‘bad’, psychological subjectivism […] which says that the categories (and the forms of intuition) are merely our ways of cognising, but do not reach the real objects themselves” (p. 17). Again, sorry for OT. opus101 and tapatrick 2 Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 A little historical context on this article and thread from the AS archives: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/22945-god-and-the-audiophiles/#comments https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/28300-why-do-objectivists-get-so-upset/#comments wgscott 1 Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted December 12, 2019 Share Posted December 12, 2019 2 hours ago, Ralf11 said: I think the added value you are searching for is called "physics" Just an aside: I just love physics evangelism, don't you? wgscott 1 Link to comment
christopher3393 Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 @wgscott, how is the link with these threads, started by @joelha, on the same topic, are off topic? 2 hours ago, christopher3393 said: A little historical context on this article and thread from the AS archives: https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/22945-god-and-the-audiophiles/#comments https://audiophilestyle.com/forums/topic/28300-why-do-objectivists-get-so-upset/#comments wgscott 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now