Vexen Crabtree 2015


Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015

Subjectivism Part One

Subjectivism: Everything we know is pervaded by personal opinion

  • 1

Reality from Cybal

Solipsism is just a word connected to the fact that everything we do is just a result of our minds and nothing more. I could not believe this any further than I do. This is the reason why bad things happen to those who are pessimists and depressed, and also why the happy people seem to just have perfect lives. The simple fact that this is real negates the reason for me even to write here, but I like to comment on all I have to think about. Some people are physical and some are mental, this depends on how you take everything. I am fully mental, although I am not unphysical. When I am unhappy, everything said unto me becomes an insult, a slap in the face that just makes it worse, and even when they try to cheer me up and say nice things, my mind won't let me accept that and the intentions of good turn to stabs in my heart, I would break down into tears before my mood lifted. Beleive what you want, because you have no other choice than to do so, and know, if you want to, that we are all inclosed in our own prison, we don't do anything more with other people than we allow our selves to think we do, and we never do as much as we want, the most we can do is exchange feelings, pleasure, and sorrow, and even that is limited.


Would you say that your ideas on epistemology and subjectivism reflect the philosophy of the Satanic Bible? I was under the impression that a Satanist would rebuke a spiritual pipe dream rather than claim that all things are true, depending on the person's perspective. Heaven would be an acceptable truth, under this assumption. Didn't Anton LaVey demand that “whatever alleged ‘truth’ is proved by results to be but an empty fiction, let it be unceremoniously flung into the outer darkness, among the dead gods, dead empires, dead philosophies, and other useless lumber and wreckage”(SB, pg 32).

I am under the impression that a Satanist would don a subjectivist attitude only in the ritual chamber, where reality is temporarily suspended. I assumed that a Satanist would believe that in mundane reality, all truths are dependent upon fact, not fancy.

Please help clear this up for me.


"Would you say that your ideas on epistemology and subjectivism reflect the philosophy of the Satanic Bible?"

The Satanic Bible doesn't mention epistemology much, but what it does mention accords much more with subjectivism than it does with absolutism. For example Anton points out that everyone makes different assumptions about god and therefore everyone creates their own god according to their needs. This is subjectivism because it shows that everyone experiences life differently.

Doesn't confuse it with compatabilism, the belief that everyone's opinions on reality is true, instead subjectivism is the belief that none of us know what is real compared to what other people see. It is not the belief that what everyone experiences or thinks is true, but that all our experiences differ.

Therefore subjectivism sets up doubt and enquiry to be highly important, if not most important, intellectual values and this certainly agrees with LaVey's question everything.

Epistemology essays


Nice site. Funny how most responses you get are arguements. I'm an absurdist, myself. All of existence and the potential therein is a joke, and each manifesting moment is another punch line. The trick is to get the joke.

There are temporal limitations to absurdity. Remember when you believed in Santa and God and perfect love? Most children are raised to be totally insane, and therefore take things quite seriously. A signifigant amount of unlearning is needed. Absurdists are no less absurd than anything else, we just don't need a drink as badly.

I wasn't brought up to believe in God... but Santa, yeah.

Is a person insane for learning in GCSE physics that atoms go around atoms in orbits? Or is their understanding merely a stepping stone to greater understanding?

Apart from their... I like your beliefs :-)

Re: absurdity

No, but a person is insane for believing in atomic orbits or moon landings or anything else that they've merely HEARD of as if it were a part of themselves, an experience they've had. That is brainwashing, and it is too easy. In this absurd world, if a person strips naked, lies on the ground, and hugs the earth in eternal gratitude for their creation, they are generally viewed as a looney. But if they were to kneel and worship some big, invisible superhero like Jesus or Satan, they'd be seen as quite a bit more sane! F*#k ME!

Some people do view superstitious organisations like Churches as valid spiritual educators in the same way normal people view qualified scientists and teachers as valid supplies of the content of our education.

People even say spiritual stuff gets results... it does, but unfortunately those results are more often the result of psychology and physiology. Thankfully the moder world (except the USA) has dropped most superstition, especially at higher levels, though the less educated and more sheep-like masses do hang on to spiritual things for longer.

Re: absurdity

OMG, You do not have to experiance somthing to know it is real.....I am a Male but I still believe Female's exist and that Female's can be pregnate even though I am not a women and can't give birth. Another example, I am a fencer (with swords) my coach is a 3 time olympian and a 5 time world champion. Am I yet? No do I believe that they did it, yes. I have seen the Metal I have seen the rankings I know for a fact they did.

I have never commited murder do I believe people do, yes.

I have never and I am betting you have never made a computer should we then to be led to believe that computers are a natrel rescourse that grow out of the ground like flowers and lily's?


I can tell you one thing about yourself. You Fear Reailty. Plain and simple that is what it is. You Fear life. So you devolp the believe that are senses are inaccurate and we can't know and consider your thoughts on the topic proof enough.


You would have to be [i]Insane[/i] to belive this. If knowlege is a non-aboslute and most or all knowlege doesn't exist what made the computer you are reading this off of? Instinct? No? Was it their when human beings evolved? No! Knowlege IS a aboslute their IS a right and wrong anser to most things...Your veiws are all irrlavent. Who cares if one person sees a diffrent "Yellow" than you do...I am on a computer other than my own so if you need proof e-mail me at or AIM me at

Subjectivism is unclear

Subjectivism seems unclear to me since it assums that things exist only in perception. Yet things exist independent of an interpretur. The facts or truth of reality exist already. It is for man to discover real things and so name them as they become percievable.
All subjectivism seems to do is degrade the quality of truth. The actual thing percieved is objective when it is real. We simply call it this or that.

Re: Subjectivism is unclear

Subjectivism doesn't state that only perception exist, merely that all of our knowledge and experience is due to fallible perception, and as such everything is "subjective" - we only have experiences that images of reality distorted by our own imperfect senses and thought.

This Is A Foolish Ideal

This ideal, this philosophy, this hogwash. Reality is there for us to PRECIEVE. Not to make. Reality exist wether we except it or not. You cannot truly know anything becuase of expericance diffrence? I am a man would you therefor tell me that Women don't exist, becuase I have never experianced being one? The computer you are seeing this on was made by someone. Some Rational person that precieved reailty. Not someone who yelped that we can't know reailty. If I came up to anyone on the streets with a knife or a gun, how would they react? They'd be scared shitless. They'd be afraid and if they could they'd run away or some sort of defense. Then I come up to you with a knife what would you subjectivist do? $20 says you won't preach about how we can't know if I am really holding a knife to your head or not. Life is sustained through reason, not wishes or whims or mysticism. You who preach this ideal simply are afraid of reality. If we cannot know anything for sure than how can we know for sure that you really made this website I am posting this on? Becuase it is there. How do you know you are alive. Hell, why do we need to sleep, eat, work, breath, walk, sit, jump, run,THINK!!!!!!! According to your idea we don't. That's what it comes down to anyhow. I'll give you a idea. How about you do nothing, you don't sit, sleep, eat, drink, or talk for 1 year. Just stand up and do nothing. You'd die. Becuase reailty is there and I can tell you one thing for sure IF YOU DON'T DRINK WATER YOU WILL DIE. But then again how can we know you are really dead?

I don't see how College Level students are falling for Subjectivism.

I can give you 2 absolutes right now.
I am Alive
I am Dead

You are free to avoid reality. You are not free to avoid the effect of your actions. Avoiding reality will bring death as surely as a H-bomb on the top of your head.

Anyone who believes in this. I codem you to the worst possible fate....

I am leaving you to your fate

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

Before continuing, I think you should re-read what subjectivism is, and make sure you're not confusing it with Solipsism

Subjectivism isn't the denial of reality, but the simple honest fact that everyone sees reality differently.

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

Do you have AIM? I'd like to talk about this with you.

I am an Objectivist. I believe in Knowledge as an Abosulte value...

If we cannot know everything or be sure we know anything.......I got a question.

Prove it

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

The page you're commenting on lays the some of the physical / biological reasoning behind subjectivism.

We have:

1. Our senses and thoughts are imperfect and variable

2. Our experience & inner character is different to everyone else

3. The way we perceive things is therefore different to everyone else

In addition to physics:

4. It is logically and physically impossible to precisely know the speed and location of a particle

5. There is inherent uncertainty in reality


6. Reality itself is different according to point of observation, meaning: No two observers can logically see precisely the same reality

Given that everyone has a slightly different brain, it is obvious to me that everyone experiences reality slightly differently... your task (it's a big one!) is to prove that somehow two people *do* experience reality in the same way.

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

I don't use any instant chat programs. I have an ICQ account but rarely turn it on.

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

I see where you are coming from, but don't you see that how easily this is shot back at you? I say this...Prove to me that one cannot precieve the same things the same way everyone else does. Give me un-deniable evidance. I will believe it only then.

heh, if we cannot know anything for sure becuase our sense's aren't "accutrate" or "good enough" or what not, than you know somthing lol, how can you know that quantum physics are correct and we are not missing somthing?

Here's a nice Double Think. " We cannot be sure of anything, I am sure of this"

heh. how can you be sure that we cannot be sure of anything. I relize your arguement, but it is so

1) Sorry to say but, irrelanvent to life. Who gives a shit if yellow is a diffrent shade to me than to you? Really sorry to offend you but what are you going to do about it?

2) I am sure you have read 1984 by George Orwell. In case you havn't here is somthing "Double Think: To have a contrediction in your mind and yet accept both things (IE: George is smart; George is dumb. and accept both to be true even though the first cancels out the 2nd and the 2nd cancels out the 1st.)
That is in a way what some believes of subjectivism are "It is possible that everything that you see, the entirety of what you consider "reality" is complete illusion."

Then you believe that the "Reality" of Quantum Physic's proves that "Reality" might somehow be false. Does everyone see the problem here? If Quantum Physics proves that we might not be able to know reality wouldn't that count for Quantum Physics to? I am having some trouble putting this in to words but think of it this way "Can god make so much food that not even god could eat it." By saying one it makes the whole idea of god false. As such is it with Quantum Physics "Subjectivism". You see how this works. If we can't know reality or at least be sure of reailty how can we know that Quantum Physics is accurate.

heh, I don't mean to offend anyone and consider this matter open to debate by anyone and everyone, I just think if you got AIM or MSN it would be a lot easier to debate this than over a message Board.

Do you see where I am coming from at least.

Oh yes and that quote on subjectivism about how we might not be sure of anything, that is Subjectivism I got it off your site.

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

heh....I win :)

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

Behave yourself! :-)

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

Knowing things for sure:
You're getting the right idea. But.. the fact that neither of us can prove something beyond all doubt implies that subjectivism is a universal truth in all but name. There is, behind all knowledge, a fundamental problem of validity, in that none of us can ever see things from "realities point of view", we're stuck permanently viewing things from our own angle.

And as everyone's angle is slightly different, and no two people have their brains or consciousness wired up in the same way, then it holds within logic that no two people ever experience the same reality - but I must add quickly that I firmly do believe there IS an underlying reality behind our experiences, it's just that no-one can ever get around the problems of subjectivism to ever prove any specific bit of what that reality is.

1) Point 1 is valid. In the vast majority of times, none of this really matters. It's only in some metaphysics and theology (and especially in epistemology) that this really matters. Oh and in psychiatry, where it is widely accepted that every person has their own little version of reality, irroncilable with what reality actually is!

2) Subjectivism is a foundation of intellectualism: to admit that we can never know the whole truth is to commit to a lifelong search for truth, never becoming complacent. However, just because there is always doubt behind every fact that pertains to reality, does not mean that we do not have working theories.

For example, the "Theory of Gravity" and "Theory of Evolution" is a scientific theory. Not fact. This is because in science, it is taken for granted that theories are never the whole truth, the same as in subjectivism: No one persons' experience is the whole truth. It is an inescapable dillemma that our brains are imperfect, our senses imperfect, yet we have to get on with our lives anyway.

That quote:
Oh right, well when I wrote that particular page I was a solipsist so it doesn't entirely surprise that comments like that got in. Solipsism is if you take subjectivism to the most extreme and stop believing an underlying reality - only in self-created reality.

It's a fundamental truth of science and philosophy that we can never be sure -- because we never know if we're completely insane and have hallucinated our whole lives whilst sat in a psychiatric hospital. Etc.

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

Once again, your points are valid under the absolutes that you put forth here. Just a few points left then I'll quit.

1) Yes well I apologize for my former ignorance, however I have studied the subject a bit further and I realize that you are very platonic in your belief. I respect this, however I am very Aristorlian in that I believe that to know the true nature of reality we must in fact trust our senses.

2) Since you say that 'Theories might be inncorrect that is why they are theories.' doesn't this mean that you have to apply subjectivism as a theory? Since we can't really know if that's correct [Subjectivism] so then you could be defeated by your own system? Of course that also leads to other questionable things...

3) I also have the firm beleive that a philosophy is only as good as it's need is in reality. That is I think a philosophy needs to A) Be logically Cohernt (Bad spelling, I mean that it can't be full of contradictions). Which leads to B) It needs to be reasonable, logical, rational, etc... C) It needs to cover most of the needed topics in the world.
Subjectivism fails by veiw of a 'Good philosophy' in a few ways... Definitivly in point C which you yourself have admited it isn't all that important in the real world. Then instead of quabbling over point A and point B, I'm just going to stick with point C...

We could waste half our lives debating this, both of us sure that we are correct, and either of us may be... I understand what your saying, and I give you credit I have argued this point a quite a few times, however you find a plausable way to explain subjetivism while others can not. Thank you for thinking. Ever have the feeling you don't care whether someone is for your ideas or against your ideas as long as they care about thinking?

Re: This Is A Foolish Ideal

you are an objectivist? i am studying this all for the very first time, mostly the difference between objectivisim and subjectivism, do you know of any websites that define objectivism? thanks.

You must relize somthing

Good things do not happen to people who are happy with their lifes.

Bad things do not happen to angry people becuase they are angry.

People are happy with their lifes becuase good things happen to them

Angry people are angry becuase bad things happen to them.....

Really this one is pretty people are idiots. Someone posted "I have noticed good things happen to happy people" this somehow proves reailty exist in your own skull and no where else or somthing of that such.........By god my friends 11 year old son proved that wrong the moment he read it......Holy shit god damn, you guys have sunken pretty low to be beaten so easiely by a 11 year old.

The post I was refering to is one about Soliopism.


It is very "interesting" that you are interested in Satanism (self-worship) while being interested in subjectivism at the same time. Anton Levey's satanism has a lot in common with the philosophy of objectivism, which would be completely at variance with subjectivism.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of "Objectivism" does indeed receive a lot of respect from within the Satanic community - however - LaVey's writings have things in common, true, but are not intrinsically Objectivist. Neither are they un-objectivist, the final line is drawn by the person in question. Would it be any other way, in a religion where you're commanded - well, firmly advised - to think for yourself?

Subjectivism and Objectivism, although their names may imply they are opposites, are not really -isms of the same game. Objectivism is epistemology whereas Ayn Rand's philosophy, commonly called Objectivism and drawn from the book "Atlas Shrugged", is primarily a moral philosophy. links to two excellent reviews of "Objectivism" within Satanism, I highly recommend you read them!

(Oh damn, it looks like something terrible has happened to one of the links, I'll leave the link there for a while to see if the two guys who run the domain take control! The other one though is by mighty Nemo, a Magister in the Church of Satan.)

knowledge and subjectivism

If you want to claim that nothing can be known, then you create the need for another word in language to describe what everyone else calls 'knowledge' aside from subjectivist quibbling. You know that you cannot put your hand through a wall, you know that if you don't eat, you will die. Even the most hard core subjectivists don't act like they don't believe in the reality that they claim is so slippery. Though we can err in our observation of reality, reality still exists, and a person would do well to try and use their imperfect senses and logic to try and discover as much objective truth as they can.

Re: knowledge and subjectivism

"put hand through wall" means different things to different people, according to their experience. The thought process of imagining "hand through wall" is different for every person.

This seams like an extremly interesting site, who are you all and whats the deal with the subject materieal.

Thanks :-)

To answer your questions:

* There is only one of me, my name is Vexen.

* The subject material is occasioned by whatever takes my interest. A history of my site and what material went up when, can be found at:

About colors.

I can see how one might thing that about colors. Being taughtt oaccept something as that color. But if such were the case then how come camouflage works so well? If the colors were switched up, wouldn't the become more visible?

Interesting idea, but I'm sticking wit the fact that we all see in the same colors. I have been tested for colorblindness on several occasions and with those tests, if you're not seeing in the same color spectrum as everyone else they just wouldn't work.

Re: About colors.

No, similar colours look similar to all our eyes because all our eyes work in the same way and give precedence to the same sets of light frequencies: BUT, the way our brain INTERPRETS those frequencies could still be vastly different from person to person, it's just that similar colours would appear only slightly different WITHIN the other persons' "alien" viewpoint, so camoflage would still work fine.


In your essay on subjectivism, you declare that no knowledge is absolute. That is a self-refuting statement. In fact, subjectivism is self-refuting. Knowledge and truth are absolute and objective and the only way to argue against this truth is to first assume that it is true.

You appear to hold human reason in high regard as it pertains to arriving at truth, yet reason collapses under the subjective worldview and as a result, one cannot attain absolute truth in a subjective framework. One must hold that contradictions are possible in order to support subjectivism.

It is not self-refuting: As we only have subjective means of learning about the world, all knowledge is subjective. We have no way of knowing Absolute truth, so even if it does exist (I cannot claim to know), it is AS IF there is no absolute truth.

Also, given the scientific advent of the discovery of quantum mechanics, i.e., observer affect, we KNOW that as observers AFFECT results of quantum interactions, all knowledge is affected by the self in the first place, even before direct observations are made.

Objectivism is fine as a theory, but it is a practical impossibility (although it may be true, there is no way of finding out).

Is it objectively true that we only have subjective means of learning about the world? Regarding your statement about quantum mechanics, are you not appealing to an objective truth in order to support your subjective position?

I am glad to see that you have responded to my initial post. I have created an account so that I can attempt to continue this discussion, for I have many further inquiries about your worldview. I hope that you will be willing to likewise, continue this thread. Also, I hope that I did not sound so aggressive in my initial assertions. They do represent my beliefs, but I do try to be as considerate as I can in regards to other's beliefs.

It is an apparent paradox only when people confuse statements like "nothing is true", "no English sentance is inherently meaningful", etc...

The description of REALITY is physics... in physics, in reality, in epistemology (the methods we use to KNOW about reality)... all points to a lack of absolute truth and DEFINATELY to a lack of absolute knowledge. This means: No fact is ultimately provable outside of personal experience. Everything is hooked to the internal with no ultimate proof of the external.

Meta-Statements ABOUT this state of affairs can be logically true without affecting the reality of the physical universe. Meta-commentary ("this sentance is a lie") is a different set of truths to physical and epistemological reality.

That's how I resolve the problem.

For the record, I am not a Solpisist and believe in absolute reality... a SINGLE existing reality that we all exist in. But I believe NONE of our knowledge about this reality is absolute.

Think of it the other way round: If absolute knowledge is possible... can you tell me ONE empirical way that we could come to learn a single absolute truth?

(Consensus is not a good guide: For example, even if all the people in the world believed the world was flat, this mere consensus would not make it so)

I post here firstly to say i really love your site (supay thoughts). It was really interesting.

I believe myself in subjectivism, in fact, I'd say i am subjectivist... I liked the exemple of the the sun (reality by consensus) because that is a thing I thought of, one day (before I even knew subjectivism existed...)

I noticed lots of people gave exemples such as 'I know for sure the hand doesn't go through the wall'. Well, you do, I do too, the majority of people do. But, there is maybe one guy, somewhere, who could be called 'insane' that thinks he can pass through walls, and that he thinks for sure he did it or is doing it. In short, realities between people can be really similar... but never exactly similar. I like to think as there is one true reality, our senses convert this reality into our minds, but this reality is changed in the process. (a little for 'sane' people and most of the time quite more for 'insane's)

->Wrote that because I just don't really understand why people reject so much the idea of a subjective reality. I'm really sorry if I repeated things that were on your website, but I don't want to have to read another time your essay on subjectivism to be sure I don't repeat anything I didn't read all comments either... (I am lazy :) )
-> Sorry again if there is mistakes in my text, I'm french, so please forgive me.

Re: -

oh well... I just read the post before mine... it says the same things I just wrote... I should pay more attention... sorry!

Re: -

"I know for sure the hand doesn't go through the wall"

Actually, if we take account of quantum physics, the hand CAN go through the wall, only, the chances are so low it will probably never happen in all humanity.

the color perceiving cells are not rods, they are cones.

the color perceiving cells are not rods, they are cones.


(Anonymous) spelled Heisenberg.

Oh and the article kicked ass. I would not care to write if it did not.


dude, i read the thing on your website about's amazing!!! it really helped a lot. thanks.


I found your comments on "subjectivism" interesting, but ultimately self refuting. Such is the error of epistemological subjectivism. In your opening definition you state, "Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure." My question for you, Vexen is, are you sure? This is the quintessence of incoherent thinking because anytime we make an assertion (or claim as fact) we are stating something we believe to be true. No one holds a view they believe to be untrue. Your claim is that we cannot know anything for certain and yet if this statement is to be taken seriously, then we cannot even know that we know that we are not certain. Like Socrates, you will forever be chasing your own tail in asserting, "One thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." What should have been said is, "One thing I know, and that is that I know something. This relativistic mindset is diplomatic, but requires us to check our gray matter at the door of the church of observational relativism.

This post by Chad
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I found your comments on "subjectivism" interesting, but ultimately self refuting. Such is the error of epistemological subjectivism. In your opening definition you state, "Subjectivism is the fact that we cannot know everything, or even know anything for sure." My question for you, Vexen is, are you sure? This is the quintessence of incoherent thinking because anytime we make an assertion (or claim as fact) we are stating something we believe to be true. No one holds a view they believe to be untrue. Your claim is that we cannot know anything for certain and yet if this statement is to be taken seriously, then we cannot even know that we know that we are not certain. Like Socrates, you will forever be chasing your own tail in asserting, "One thing I know, and that is that I know nothing." What should have been said is, "One thing I know, and that is that I know something. This relativistic mindset is diplomatic, but requires us to check our gray matter at the door of the church of observational relativism.

This post by Chad <>


The definition of subjectivism itself is flawed in the previous page. It says the subjectivism is the FACT!! that we cannot know everything or anything for sure. It doesnt make any sense. That proves that it is flawed and cannot be true or even sound in anyway.

Don't misunderstand the ontology and get muddled-up with the symantics:

1. Even if you did, by some accident, happen to know everything, then, you could still never VERIFY that you know everything. I.e., there would be no way for to KNOW that you KNEW everything; therefore it is always intrinsically true that nothing can ever 'know everything'.

This doesn't contradict subjectivism, it is simply the way things are.

2. Also, we cannot know any intrinsic fact about the physical world; by logic we can make true statements. For example, the theory that 'there is a sun' is factually true: This is because there is much evidence for it, like there is for evolution and gravity. (Supported by the Theory of Evolution, and the Theory of Gravity). When there is a certain amount of evidence, things become known as 'facts'. However, we can never know for sure if our facts are true.

The statement 'we can never be completely sure' applies to knowledge about things-in-reality (instrinsic knowledge), and that we can't know anything for sure is a philosophical statement about meta-knowledge (epistemology). The two don't contradict; what you are *really* meaning to say, is:

a. In saying you can't 'know anything for sure', you might be wrong.

But, there is no evidence for (a), and there is lots of evidence for (b), that:

b. We can't know anything for sure.

Both are conjecture, but, there is so much evidence for (b) that it is best considered a fact, like gravity. You would really need a lot of evidence or some really strong arguments to refute gravity, or subjectivism.

Re: flawed

What a cop out vexen: "It is simply the way things are"? Here I'll ask the question again...Are you sure? Do you KNOW it's simply the way things are?

You have absolute certitude that your view is true, (factually true, objectively true) yet you deny such a thing exists. You view therefore self destructs. THAT is simply the way things are.

Why don't you just level with everyone and admit that you don't really believe in this nonsense, and the only reason you've written on the subject is to foment discussion.


OK, I'll explain this truth from another point of view:

(1) There are physical facts about the world.
(2) There are pieces of theoretical rational knowledge about the world (meta-data).

Subjectivism is a necessary conclusion about epistemology because of the imperfect and personal nature of experience and the senses.

I know it seems like a contradiction (like the sentence "all sentences are false", but, it really is true that everyone experiences all of life from a subjective point of view, and that as such, no facts are philosophically externally verifiable. This conclusion is true, even though it result in a piece of meta-data that seems contradictory. It's a classic.

Rather than writing exasperated messages, why don't you attempt to explain how some knowledge might not be subjective? I assure you, you will find no such knowledge is possible!

Re: flawed

Like, say, your view that "no facts are philosophically externally verifiable"? Or perhaps your view that my messages are "exasperated"? What about your statement that "no such knowledge is possible!"? Are these statements true, or are they simply true for you, Vexen?


1. Facts about the world are not; you can arrive at facts about the self through simple logic though. One such fact is that facts about the world are not externally verifiable. Meaning: There is no test that you can do that will prove that you're not hullicinating everything.

2. If you believe that such things are true, please explain how it is possible to study the world objectively and not subjectively?

3. No such knowledge about the world IS possible; but, we DO know that we ourselves don't have such knowledge. It's not a big of a contradiction as you think. It's the basic problem of epistemology.

  • 1

Log in

No account? Create an account