is Kropotkin objectivist or subjectivist?

several here have accused me of being an objectivist…

I disagree and in doing so, hope to help clarify this objective vs
subjective argument…

I have strong beliefs in the political which is about
being liberal and I object to conservatism for the many reasons
I have listed and yet, and yet…
with almost many posts in many diverse threads, I have
asked for people to list their view on that subject…
for example, I have said their is no god and have stated
why I don’t believe in god and then almost as surely,
I have asked for anyone to offer up evidence to back up their
point that there is a god…
I did this during my recent thread in which I defended conservatism
and capitalism and I asked for any other defense of conservatism
and or capitalism…I also have asked for an attack on liberalism
in which no one responded and I have no problem with that but
I ask for an defense or attack with the idea that I can incorporate
that defense or attack into my own viewpoint…
why… because I am subjectivist… I believe in and defend
the idea of there being a subjective, relative universe which includes
my own idea’s being subjective and relative…
this means I am more then happy to change my viewpoints
to include any evidence which shows me wrong on any given viewpoint…

I seem to rarely change in my viewpoints these days for the very simple
reason, I have been attacking and defending my viewpoint for 40 years…
there are few if any arguments I haven’t already heard and worked into
my philosophy…

if I was truly an objectivist, I wouldn’t ask for or want any opposing
arguments to my points… I want to hear from you and what you think
and how does that argument from you, change any viewpoint I have…

as I have mentioned multiple times, I have changed my political
and philosophical viewpoints several times because of evidence
I have thought about or gotten that has changed my mind on
a certain topic… I was an anarchist and I got evidence that
changed my mind on the subject and so I changed my political viewpoints…

I welcome an attacks on my viewpoints but rarely hear an attack that
I haven’t already heard a dozen times before, but I still keep waiting and
I still keep asking… do you have evidence that backs up your viewpoint?
or do you have evidence that shows me wrong?

if the evidence is strong enough, I will change my viewpoint to accommodate
any new evidence…

I am always looking for new evidence, new arguments, new thoughts
about any given subject…

I have argued for relativist thought since the beginning and
the only reason people miss that is because they are dealing with
their thoughts about me instead of approaching my thoughts as they
currently exists… read me, for me, about me, don’t approach me through
your viewpoints because then you miss the fact, that I am a relativist,
through and through…

Kropotkin

Yes, I have characterized you as a liberal objectivist.

Now, by “objectivist” I don’t pretend that my understanding of the word is “epistemologically” or “technically” correct insofar as a “serious philosopher” might define the word.

Instead, I focus the beam more on the extent to which someone encompasses their moral and political values in a context that we all recognize as “one of us” vs. “one of them”. In other words, they insist that, using either God or Reason or Ideology or Nature as a font, those who do not share their own values/ideals are perforce, necessarily wrong. Why? Because perforce, necessarily, their own values/ideals are right.

In other words, you may go out searching for the “reasons” and the “arguments” of others, but, when push comes to shove, your reasons and your arguments are always deemed to be either the most rational/virtuous of them all or [sometimes] the only rational/virtuous frame of mind.

Now, this either describes you or it doesn’t.

Again, I situate my own values existentially – subjectively/subjunctively – in this:

1] I was raised in the belly of the working class beast. My family/community were very conservative. Abortion was a sin.
2] I was drafted into the Army and while on my “tour of duty” in Vietnam I happened upon politically radical folks who reconfigured my thinking about abortion. And God and lots of other things.
3] after I left the Army, I enrolled in college and became further involved in left wing politics. It was all the rage back then. I became a feminist. I married a feminist. I wholeheartedly embraced a woman’s right to choose.
4] then came the calamity with Mary and John. I loved them both but their engagement was foundering on the rocks that was Mary’s choice to abort their unborn baby.
5] back and forth we all went. I supported Mary but I could understand the points that John was making. I could understand the arguments being made on both sides. John was right from his side and Mary was right from hers.
6] I read William Barrett’s Irrational Man and came upon his conjectures regarding “rival goods”.
7] Then, over time, I abandoned an objectivist frame of mind that revolved around Marxism/feminism. Instead, I became more and more embedded in existentialism. And then as more years passed I became an advocate for moral nihilism.

And then I ask those whom I construe to be objectivists to situate their values/ideals out is this particular world that we live in and to note how and why their own frame of mind is different.

Then I ask them to imagine themselves in a context in which their values/ideals come into conflict with another. In turn, I ask them to describe how they are not entangled [as I am] in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

They either will or they won’t.

Let’s be clear as to what you are arguing here. Are you acknowledging that your own values/ideals [here and now] are largely an existential contraption rooted more or less in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

This conveys [to me] the realization that, given new experiences, relationships and sources of information/knowledge, your values/ideals may well change. That, in other words, there may well not be an objective truth that all conflicting values can converge on/at if only they come to accept the optimal frame of mind.

And then, pertaining to an issue like abortion, I ask them to describe this argument such that the “conflicting goods” that I describe in turn are obviated.

Can you cite particular examples of where you have yourself changed your mind regarding an important facet of your argument/value system today.

And yet for many objectivists, they are hesitant to do so. Why? Because once they acknowledge that they were once wrong about making a proper distinction between particular right and wrong behaviors, they are acknowledging that they may well be wrong now too. That, given new experiences etc., they may well change their mind…again.

Now, I’m not arguing that this frame of mind does not exist – only that no one of late has provided me with an argument such that I can at least imagine the possibility of an “objective morality”. Be that basically liberal or conservative. Religious or secular.

I’d be interested in hearing particular examples of this. The evidence that you embraced when you believed “X” and how/why the new evidence caused you to believe “Y” and then “Z” instead.

My problem of course is this: the manner in which I construe the meaning of “conflicting goods”. In other words, that I am able to grasp how and why the reasons from those on either end of the political spectrum can be deemed reasonable given a particular set of political assumptions. That there does not appear to be an optimal set of assumptions such that both liberals and conservatives can converge on the one objective truth.

And then there are the arguments of the sociopaths. Where is the air-tight philosophical argument [from either liberals or conservatives] that makes their own assumptions go away. In a Godless universe.

I shall reply when I have the time for a proper response, not like the 5 minutes
I have today…

Kropotkin

Looking forward to it.

Another ugly day at work and I am still tired but
here is PART of my answer but probably not the answer you were looking
for…

As I read your post, I read about how you filter the world through
Dasein and it got me to thinking about Dasein…

Now last night I was exhausted but I did a little bit of research into
Dasein and got to thinking about Dasein…

Dasein is another word for being, as far as I can tell,
Heidegger for one, thought that the failure of Western Philosophy
was in a failure to follow up the Greeks with their mode of
philosophy which is basically about being/Dasein…

read the pre-Socratics philosophers and they are all about being/dasein…
What is being…what is being made of…being or substance as they called it,
what allows it to change…why is there being instead of nonbeing…

these are the issues that the pre-Socratic philosophers were engaged in…
and Heidegger thought we should return to this issue…

as far as I can tell, being/dasein is an metaphysical, ontology issue…
now the reason I have never really thought about being/dasein is
I have no interest in metaphysical/ ontological issues…

I don’t begin with being/dasein… I begin with ok, we are here, now what…
I begin with the now what part… I have no control over being/dasein…
what is… is… My interest is not about what is… being/Dasein…
but what happens next…

thing is I can’t really add anything to being/Dasein… we are and…
I have nowhere to go once I state, we are being/ Dasein…

ummmmmmm… need to think about this some more…

Kropotkin

ok, upon further research… Dasein can mean existence or self awareness of
existence…and that still leads me to simply go, ok, we exist, now what?
it is certainly a limitation in my thinking as to simply accept the fact we exist
and move on from that fact… yes, I am aware we exist and I exist, but that, in my mind,
is a given… if we didn’t exist, we couldn’t be self aware…ummmmmmmm…

still thinking

Kropotkin

Peter, have you not had the pleasure of going through the whole dasein bit with iambiguous?

K: I have but upon reflection, I am being led to new thoughts and idea’s
that I am working out… and this is why I haven’t posted here of late as I
am thinking out it…

Kropotkin

I think that you missed the point of what “dasein” was meant to refer to. But Bigus will probably fill you in.

K: as I have stated, I am still working out Dasein/being to my own satisfaction…
which is what philosophy is… working out the implications for oneself…

Kropotkin

Marxists usually are objectivists. This would include you Peter.

Just for the record, the part that I am looking for revolves around distinguishing an objective frame of mind able to be reasonably demonstrated as true for all of us [math, the laws of nature, the logical rules of language, empirical facts etc.] from a subjective/subjunctive frame of mind that revolves more around the manner in which we acquire an identity and a set of value judgments as this becomes pertinent when our own value judgments [liberal, conservative etc.] come into conflict with others.

I [of course] am entangled in this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values “I” can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction…or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then “I” begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

I then tap the objectivists among us on the shoulder and ask them to note how, relating to their own moral/political conflicts with others, they are not.

Folks like, say, James S. Saint and Mr. Reasonable. :-"

In my view, Heidegger’s Dasein is more an intellectual contraption than an actual extant [flesh and blood] human being. I took the part where he pointed out that – fortuitously, adventitiously – we are “thrown” at birth into a particular world historically, culturally and experientially and tried to grapple with those particular human interactions that seemed [to me] to be more implicated in the consequences of that.

For example, no matter where or when any particular one of us is born, we all require – objectively – food, water, clothing, shelter, projection from enemies etc., in order to survive. Dasein here more or less dissolves into the “human condition”.

And we interact in particular human communities in which a set of rules are needed in order prescribe and proscribe particular behaviors in order to sustain the least dysfunctional interactions.

wiki:

Dasein (German pronunciation: [ˈdaːzaɪn]) is a German word that means “being there” or “presence” (German: da “there”; sein “being”), and is often translated into English with the word “existence”.

Born there and not here. Born then and not now. Existing in one particular historical, cultural and experiential context and not in another. Okay, which part of our interactions with others is that more applicable [consequential] regarding?

You all know my own speculation regarding that: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529

Sure, it’s this if that’s what you want it to be. Me, I prefer a more substantive rendition. I prefer to bring it, among other things, “down to earth”.

As though the manner in which we construe the meaning of “here and now” is not profoundly intertwined existentially in the manner in which historically, culturally and experientially [pertaining to our individual experiences, relationships and sources of knowledge/information] we have come to acquire a particular “I”. And out in a particular world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

I think about these relationships in a particular way. Here and now they seem reasonable to me. But here and now that entails being snarled in my dilemma above.

Is there a way to yank myself up out of it? On the other hand, when I pose this to others [particularly the objectivists], their chief concern seems to revolve more around this: making sure that I don’t yank them down into it.

Note to others:

Decide for yourselves what these two are up to. I call it “retorting”. Rather than, say, actually making a substantive contribution to the exchange.

This is what passes for an intelligent and reasoned discussion of these crucial human interactions out in the world that we actually live in.

They make me the issue instead.

And who does that remind you of? :laughing:

Don’t play innocent dude. You’ve been trolling with the same shit for so long that you’re literally known exclusively for that. You’re the copy/paste guy who thinks everyone is an objectivist and you’ve got your own definition of dasein, that you use to justify having your brain frozen in a loop for as long as anyone can remember, unable to think outside of your own little box. The world is simple for you, and you’re happy. And that’s ok. But you don’t need to pretend like you’re doing anything more than what I just said you are.

Note to others:

Even the philosophy forum is no longer a refuge from this sort of caustic huffing and puffing.

It is just short of Kidstuff, isn’t it?

Or [perhaps] his aim here is to derail the thread…to get it “locked”.

Why don’t you go here – viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879 – and ask him.

Indeed, I often come back to the OP here when I need to know for certain what has happened to ILP over the years.

ok, after some thought, this is where I am right now…
this is subject to revision after further thought…

We have objective and we have subjective…

what does that mean?
objective means an objective viewpoint…
a viewpoint that has a defined point of view for
example, we have god and god’s views are defined as being objective
because it is a standard that is the same and has been the same and always
will be the same… Murder is wrong… thou shall not kill…
this is an objective viewpoint outside of human “relativism”
and a standard that is unchangeable because it is from god…
objective

subjective: an viewpoint taken from a changing point of view
thus murder is wrong unless it is for the state or for self defense…
it is not based on an objective standard which remains the same,
a relativistic viewpoint changes with the circumstances…
murder can be wrong or it can be justified or it can be even right…
depending on the circumstances… the standard used for a subjective
viewpoint maybe this or it may be this or it maybe this depending on
the situation…
situational ethics depends on the situation…without any reference
to any outside the human standard like god…

now so far so good… I am sure because I wrote it, many will object…
not because it is right or wrong, just because I wrote it and people around
here seem to object to my breathing as well as anything I write or think…

Now can there be an subjective objective standard… YES…

now let us take Marxism and a Marxist…
a Marxist will believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Marxist
viewpoint is objective because it is based on scientific laws…
agree, disagree or be neutral that Marxism is based on scientific laws,
doesn’t matter, what matters is the Marxist believes that Marxism is
based on scientific laws and is objective… and so believe in those scientific
laws makes Marxism objective and thus like god’s laws… based on objective
properties that are unchangeable and a standard that has existed, is existing and will
always exist…thou shall not murder… economics is the basis of human existence…
no difference as far as a Marxist is concerned…the two statements are equal
because they are objective standards that exist through time and are unchangeable
by humans…at this point, we are not interested in whether a Marxist is right or
wrong about the correctness of his statements… just that a Marxist believes those
statements to be objective…just as a Christian will run any statements though
what they believe to be an objective viewpoint, gods laws, the state demands
that citizens kill other citizens and the Christian will object because the blanket demand
of the state is contrary to the laws of god and should be rejected…we see this
all the time, the hobby lobby decision by the supreme court is centered on this
very point… hobby lobby should not have to pay for contraceptives for their employees
because that violates their religious principles… the fight between religion and
the state that has lasted for about as long as humans have existed…
anyway, what if the Marxist objected to the law if contraceptives were not
allowed to be given to employees… in other words, because of their
“objective” viewpoint that Marxism is a objective viewpoint and
and so they should be allowed to give their employees contraceptives even
if doing so was against the law because their viewpoint was as valid as
and based upon the same set of standards a Christian was based on…
an objective viewpoint, standard that has been the same and is the same and will be
the same for all time…it actually doesn’t matter if the Marxist is any more right
or less right then a Christian, for him, the exact same principle is at work…
an objective viewpoint outside the whims of humans…

now what about someone who has a value system that they based on
certain principles and they run all their opinions through their viewpoint…
no different than a Christian would or a Marxist would…

now how is that any less objective then a Christian or a Marxist?

their principles are based on views they see as objective and thus
is objective… Say we name that someone iambiguous…

he runs all his incoming idea’s through his set and unchanging principles…
does that make him a relativist or an objectivist? I would argue that it made
him a objectivist… he has a set of unchanging idea’s through which he
makes all decisions and runs all other idea’s against… how is that different then
a Christian or a Marxist? So a true relativist would not use a set series of standards
that a Christian or a Marxist would… in other words, there is no set standards
for a relativist and so anyone who does have a set standard would be an objectivist…

where does that place a Kropotkin? He believes in certain values that do change…
people for the most part are good, people for the most part want to do the right thing…
he believes that given a chance, people will work and live and do the right thing…
what the right thing is and can be debated… Kropotkin is a relativist because
he has no set standard which he follows and yet, and yet, he believes that
death penalty should be abolished and killing by anyone is wrong, those are set
and qualify as objective standards… we are all objectivist and we are all relativist…
depending on how much we go by set standards that are created or we create…
under examination… the idea of objective and relativist thought crumble because
it can mean, we at any given time, can be objective and/or relativist…

I shall reflect upon this further but I think I understand this concept a bit better…

Kropotkin

Wow…
I didn’t know you were That lost.

“Objective” means “true independent of anyone’s opinion”.
“Subjective” means “true depending upon a subject’s opinion”.

So…

No. Although objectively, there are subjective opinions.

You are confusing “absolute vs relative” with “objective vs subjective” (and there is also “universal vs regional”, often conflated into the topic).

Strict logic determines whether anything is actually objectively true. Define what the terms being used mean in regards to reality to the person speaking/preaching. Ensure that the premises are objectively true. Maintain unambiguous, sequential, consistency in using those terms while assembling a train of reasoning and the end conclusion will be objectively true given the definitions provided.

The errors that are made are either untrue premises, language inconsistency, or non-sequitur reasoning (jumping to conclusions before ensuring contiguous logic).

Making subjective statements does not mean that any error has been made. The statement “I like chocolate”, is an objectively true statement about my subjective tastes. It is a fact of reality that I like chocolate (assuming that I haven’t lied). But I only like chocolate due to my personal preferences, thus the statement depends upon my subjective perspective. It is an objective statement about my subjective tastes.

If someone says “Chocolate is good tasting”, the statement is neither objectively true nor false despite the appearance of being an objective claim. It is a subjective statement claiming that chocolate is good tasting to someone or perhaps to everyone, to a subject(s). For anything to taste good, there must be a taster, a subject doing the tasting and assessing their own favor, their opinion. So such a statement is entirely subjective whether true or not.

Many argue that every reference to “good” is necessarily subjective only, that nothing can be logically, necessarily good despite what anyone thinks about it. But those arguments are actually about what the word “good” is to mean. Some define “good” as a favorable perspective, thus subjective. And some define “good” to mean something to always support or prefer regardless of who you are or what you prefer, such as the continuation of the universe or perhaps the continuation of some form of life. Objective goods are always abstract.

So objectivity is not about belief, even though objective statements reflect one’s beliefs. Subjectivity also reflects beliefs but subjectivity references only those truths that regard a subjects perspective or preferences.

K: I must admit I am impressed by how much you missed my point…
my thought has nothing to do with logic because logic is, by its nature,
sterile and leads one nowhere… we have had almost 100 years of logic
thinking in philosophy and it has gotten us nowhere…it leads us nowhere…
logic seduces one into thinking they have done something, accomplished something,
when in fact, logic leads us nowhere…I am still thinking about my post…

Kropotkin

… which is why so very many people disagree with you do very much.

And probably why you totally missed my point (and thus still have no accurate understanding of objective vs subjective)

How stunningly ridiculous. You appear to have zero knowledge of the most fundamental philosophical concerns: objectivity and logic (whether agreeing to them or not, you have to go study just to figure out the words). With such extreme philosophical naivety, I have to be curious as to why you are on a philosophy board at all.

Without logic there would be no mathematics, no science, and no technology. Yet with the extreme degree of change in the world resulting from those things, you proclaim that logic “leads us nowhere”. :confusion-seeingstars:

Perhaps you should stick to your politics hate-spews against anything hinting at being conserving, healthy, or good for anyone.

Peter. Slow down buddy. What are you saying here? These are bold declarations. Can you expand on this a bit?