Some notes on Perspectivism.
Perspectivism is essentially the philosophy of Nietzsche (and later, Quine). But I will avoid, to some extent, using N as an example, because I am kindasorta a perspectivist, myself. Actually, I call my self a contextualist, but the differences between my view and N’s are subtle, and not important except in some details. What perspectivism holds is that any view, any principle, any idea, cannot be grounded except in a given context - there is no universal basis for any view. That context is specific to an individual, but perspectivism is neither subjectivism nor is it relativism - two schools that perspectivism is often confused with.
The subjectivist has discovered that he exists, as an individual (more or less) and bases his philosophy upon this fact. But, as Descartes showed, the subjectivist may call upon God, for instance, to be a unifying force, to provide a grounding for “objective” fact. The perspectivist cannot do this. The perspectivist has no external unifying force upon which to rely. The unifying principle for a perspectivist is the perpsectivist himself, and his psychological and biological needs.
The relativist has no unifying principle at all - he holds that there is no basis whatever to make judgements. This is why true relativists are as scarce as hen’s teeth.
So, what is this context that the perspectivist employs? Truly, there are many. The perspectivist examines any issue from many points of view, and here I will call upon Nietzsche - his analysis is always manifold - the contexts are conceptual at times, and “physical” at others. History, psychology, religion, social arrangements - whatever tool is available. But the perspectivist also assumes will - which can be seen as N’s Will to Power, or as simple agency, or as the evident limitations of the human organism.
Decisions, actions, ideas that are necessary for human survival - for the survival of the individual organism, or for these organisms collectively, are adequate groundings for the perspectivist. In this way, truth is irrelevant, except as a psychological phenomenon - truth in the classical greek usage, or in the modern religious usage of that word, that is. My own contention is that the survival needs of the organism replace any epistemic considerations - that neither Nietzsche nor I can make a coherent epistemological statement.
Likewise, any morality that can be considered transferable on principle to another human organism is out of the question as well, for the perspectivist - only the projection of power from one organism to another is allowed. But here, might does not equal right - it equals victory. For the perspectivist, there are no crusades, no holy wars, but only wars. The perspectivist cannot be a relativist - the only criteria is winning - the question of rightness, in its usual sense, anyway, never arises.
Unlike subjectivism, perspectivism starts with the individual and ends there. The question is not “what is good for me?”, but “what do I want?” or “what do I need?”. Any considerations that resemble moral ones (and they will) are subservient to the perspectivist’s own needs. While the perspectivist is keenly aware of culture (this is a vast and general context for the perspectivist), it is always a backdrop for the individual. So, while there is more than one basis for making judgements, there is only one for any given individual - within the matrix of the specific contexts that the perspectivist employs - that is to say, that matrix is composed of those contexts.
So, my contentention is that perspectivism disallows both morality and epistemology. It also disallows any metaphysics or teleology or ontological considerations. It assumes existence - although I will concede that true Nietzsche scolars may disagree. Perspectivism examines the world from the vantage point of an individual organism (that of a given perspectivist) who has certain requirements, including basic physical ones, and seeks to fulfill those requirements. It is in this way reductive - the perspectivist seeks to strip away ideas that are unecessary, and to start from the bare facts of physical existence. “Truth” is a psychological and not epistemic state. Values are measured against the individual, and not against any absolutist conception. Any absolutism that can be detected in a perspectivist view is the absolutism of the individual. The perspectivist starts counting at “1” and not at “infinity”.
Hope that’s even a little coherent. Maybe Nihilistic will bail me out here.
edit - I made a stupid typo above - “might does not equal might” has been correct to "might does not equal right.
