Interesting Thoughts on Subjectivism versus Objective Truth by Butler Shaffer

“A belief in absolute truths, coupled with a self-righteous resolve to enforce such views upon the world, is a pathology that must be confronted head on if we are to preserve any semblance of humanity. If we are to overcome our lemming-like march into mutual self-destruction, we must begin at the source of the problem. The relevant question, in my view, is this: is it possible for us to have an empirical understanding of the world, or to act upon the basis of philosophical principles and values, other than through our subjective understanding? Are there such qualities as “objective” truths — be they empirical or moral — that operate in the world outside of our own mind?”

“In the realm of economics, are there objective values to be ascribed to goods and services that are apart from the values given them by freely contracting parties? Indeed, though we can speak of the “price” arrived at in a transaction as objective, is it not evident that the value given to that item is not only subjective — differing in the minds of each contracting party — but, further, (a) can never equal the objective price, and (b) can never be known even to the parties involved? Is it possible for us to extend this awareness of the subjective underpinnings of economic transactions into our efforts to understand and function in the world in all other areas?”

“Using a dictionary definition, are there “truths” in the world that “exist independently of mind?” If there are, can we know of such matters other than through our individualized opinions? I believe that everything you or I can know about the world — whether in the form of empirical information or philosophic principles — derive from our subjective experiences, and nothing more.”

“We humans are destroying ourselves through a self-righteousness grounded in a belief in objective truths, whether it comes from religious fundamentalists, advocates of “politically correct” speech and behavior, or ideologues who seek to forcibly redesign economic and social systems to suit their visions of how the world should perform. I will go even further and suggest to you that a belief in objective truths and values is consistent with political collectivism and inconsistent with individual liberty.”

“If “truth” and “moral principles” reside beyond the individual — and there has never been a shortage of men and women prepared to define and describe this moral order for the rest of us — why should we not want to mandate uniform, standardized social systems and practices to forcibly direct people to comply with such eternal and transcendent principles? Why would we be expected to show any tolerance for those whose ideas or conduct differed from the objective truths?”

“For the sake of living honestly, peacefully, and in a condition of liberty, let us turn our minds inwardly, like a mirror, so that we may reflect upon the creative capacities that lie within us, through which we inwardly construct our images of the world. Let us acknowledge the complementary nature of our minds: that we can subjectively comprehend and act upon the universe without, at the same time, having our understanding precisely correlate with the world in which we live. Let us have the humility to recognize that we are generally able to function well in a complicated universe in spite of never having complete and certain knowledge. Let us recognize that one who believes in a flat-earth, geocentric world can still farm a good field of wheat, and that a man who rejects your moral philosophy may still be a good neighbor.”

“We have been trained to look for godliness, virtue, direction, and truth outside ourselves, in some agency external to ourselves. Such beliefs have been generated largely by those who have either a religion or a political system to fasten upon the necks of their fellow beings. It is through such thinking that some have been able to control the thoughts and actions of others by attacking their victims’ sense of self-capacity and worthiness to function in the world.”

“It is time that we discovered the inner sense of what it means to be a free and responsible individual. We are destroying ourselves through processes by which we have allowed others to define both reality and propriety for us. Like dogs, we have learned to beg and roll over upon command from our masters, to slobber in anticipation of some small morsel, and to carry our leashes in our own mouths. None of this could have been accomplished without our willingness to believe that we are inwardly incapable of defining our own purposes in life or pursuing our own interests without the supervision of others. It has been our lack of confidence in the sufficiency of our inner being that permits such psychic self-flagellation. Why do we persist in living irresponsibly, by allowing others to form our judgments? Why do we fear our own minds but insist on believing the thinking of others?”

Thanks Adam. I haven’t been reading the Daily’s lately and missed that one. Good stuff.

Objective truth only could exist in math and logic. Other things are derived from one and another.. like morality is justified, because it is an evolutionary trait to seek common rules among people, but that doesn’t mean, that this objectivity comes from gods or some other external source, just from our own minds.

However, what about empirical facts? If one only believes, that mind creates reality, then any debate becomes kind fruitless. One has to assume, that there is external world through which our minds can interact (to be able to debate), or “objective reality” which is commonf for all living beings. Though, that doesn’t mean, that we all percieve it the same. Anyway, I am not impressed.

I normally like Shaffer but I was saddened and embarrassed by this.I thought he was better than that.

It’s not like Shaffer’s saying that the world is ethereal and we just conjure up things which conflict with other things and thus make ‘relativism’ legitimate.

His point is that all that we can know and understand of the world can only be perceived and thus there is no way to grasp an objective universe beyond such perception.

The ideas of the world that we consider ‘true’ are those that have a consistency to them, e.g. rocks are hard. And as mysterious the nature of our minds may be, we could not deny, no matter how much we ‘unthink’ it, that one and one make two. We are still able to make sense of the world and perceive consistency and uniformity in it, as ‘subjective’ as our knowledge of it may be.

So it isn’t too far out to say that the world appears as it does based on categories of the mind, as Kant and later Mises understood.

If unable to appreciate these insights, then we could not fully appreciate the Austrian methodology either. We are stuck in the Randian notion of ‘objectivity,’ which doesn’t really pertain to objectivity but to mere explicitness, literalness and appearance: ‘A is A’ without actually ascertaining the nature of ‘A’ and endeavoring to discover why it appears as such, and how ‘A’ may for various reasons appear differently between different people.

Hey Scott F., this is Paul from the FfRP page. I once discussed this topic with Francis B., who told me that ‘A is A’ was one thing that he agreed with Rand. This is a portion of my reply to him:

All we have are our perceptions. Now there are some perceptions that appear to be quite consistent and even stable in our life - the earth as we know it, the sun’s rising and setting (which is actually the earth rotating - which illustrates quite well how perception is not reality itself), gravity, people we know - but these do not make for an objective reality, only very consistent perceptions. In this sense, I subscribe to subjective reality.

And with regards to the ‘moral relativism’ charge:

It is quite possible for a sense of what is right and wrong to be developed even when seeing the world as subjective.

Because it is possible to perceive consistent relationships between action and consequence, one is able to place their faith on a certain code of conduct, trusting that this would serve them well in life.

MnoruS:

Nice post.

“The ideas of the world that we consider ‘true’ are those that have a consistency to them, e.g. rocks are hard.”

…an increase in quantity is consistently associated with a decrease in value…

“So it isn’t too far out to say that the world appears as it does based on categories of the mind, as Kant and later Mises understood…If unable to appreciate these insights, then we could not fully appreciate the Austrian methodology either.”

…also Menger:

“There is one rule of cognition for the investigation of theoretical truths which as far as possible is verified beyond doubt not only by experience, but simply by our laws of thinking…strictly typical phenomena of a definite kind must always, and indeed in consideration of our laws of thinking, simply of necessity be followed by strictly typical phenomena of just as definite and different type.”

“This rule holds true not only of the nature of phenomena, but also of their measure, and experience not only offers us no exception to it, but such a thing simply seems inconceivable to the critical mind.”

“If, therefore, exact laws are at all attainable, it is clear that these cannot be obtained from the point of view of empirical realism, but only in this way, with theoretical research satisfying the presuppositions of the above rule of cognition.”

(Investigations into the Method of the Social Sciences)

(note: when thinking about Menger’s passages, we may consider the notion of “exact laws” of thinking, rather than “empirical laws” of thinking. Doing so brings us closer to an understanding of the epistemological foundations of praxeology as Mises conceived it)

“‘A is A’ without actually ascertaining the nature of ‘A’ and endeavoring to discover why it appears as such, and how ‘A’ may for various reasons appear differently between different people.”

…or, without ascertaining how to bring about A, or how to prevent the occurrence of A…

“And with regards to the ‘moral relativism’ charge:”

If moral relativism, why not “economic” relativism. Why not an entire science of the right and wrong products to purchase?

Ford cars right, Chevy cars wrong. Blue shirt right, green shirt wrong. Coffee ice cream right, rocky road wrong…

Why not musical relativism? Rolling Stones right, Beatles wrong…

“Because it is possible to perceive consistent relationships between action and consequence, one is able to place their faith on a certain code of conduct, trusting that this would serve them well in life.”

Because it is possible to perceive consistent relationships between action (A) and consequence (B), one is able to develop a general science of action and consequence (called a general science of human action) that goes beyond economic transactions and treats “moral” or “ethical” actions (i.e., those actions we direct toward other people). This serves them well in life since they are provided with praxeological knowledge about how to bring B about (if they consider B beneficial) or how to avoid the occurrence of B (if they consider B detrimental).

This approach is referred to as utilitarianism (in the Misesian sense), since it provides knowledge about the “utilization” of various means (A) for bringing about or avoiding various consequences (B).

And thus, the implication of Shaffer’s passage:

“Is it possible for us to extend this awareness of the subjective underpinnings of economic transactions into our efforts to understand and function in the world in all other areas?”

Translation: Can we construct a praxeological science of moral, ethical, and political actions, as we have for economic actions ?

"“We humans are destroying ourselves”

Hyperbole. There are almost 10^10 of us now.

a belief in objective truths and values is consistent with political collectivism and inconsistent with individual liberty.

So no one should be subjected to gravity, unless they willingly entered into a contract. If I speak of the “laws of gravity”, I am a cruel etatist committing aggression against you. In the Land of the Free, everyone should be allowed to levitate.

I disagree that this is subjective as if it’s subjective as if there is anyother way it could possibly be or that it’s just this way because we want it to be.

This may be our point of disagreement: what constitutes ‘subjectivity.’ As I understand it, subjectivity is not a mere wishing or asserting things to be a certain way and thus contending it is so. What is subjective need not be disagreeable between two perceivers, e.g. one and one make two. We only know this equation as true because we couldn’t possibly think it otherwise. We could not possibly escape our perception so as to look at the matter ‘objectively’ and thus determine that the equation is true even apart from our perception. The notion itself is inconceivable.

I disagree.I believe austrianism is bound up with the idea of realism and objective reality.

Are we then to classify the a priori as unreal? If we do not recognize that our reality appears as it does as a result of our frameworks, then all we have are empirical data disconnected with one another wherein no sense could be made of facts. How could we even begin to use the principles of praxeology without acknowledging a distinction between theory and fact?

Theories shape our interpretation of facts, just as our faculties of perception shape our experiences. Simply put, frameworks shape or determine our reality. And once again, if we persist in an ‘objective reality,’ all we have are disjointed, meaningless facts.

While Rand is famous for it,it is not hers alone.It has been held as far back as Aristotle and in modern times by your average person unafflicted by postmodernism.

I don’t know, Aristotle’s epistemology does not strike me as simplistic as that of Rand’s. Rand’s ‘A is A’ was just the starting point of Aristotle’s discussion on noncontradiction (which I’d have to review to expound on), and his ‘Metaphysics,’ with its discussion on the nature of the existence of numbers and whatnot, strikes me as closer to Kant than Rand. Incidentally, Kant also opened his discussion on the a priori by acknowledging the principle of noncontradiction.

Who said the following?

“… if no substance can consist of universals because a universal indicates a ‘such,’ not a ‘this,’ and if no substance can be composed of substances existing in complete reality, every substance would be incomposite, so that there would not even be a formula of any substance.” [which I take to mean that human beings must adopt classifications in order to know anything at all]

“… no universal term is the name of a substance, and no substance is composed of substances.” [pondering a kind of noumena?]

“… in proportion as we are dealing with things which are prior in definition and simpler, our knowledge has more accuracy, i.e. simplicity. Therefore a science which abstracts from spatial magnitude is more precise than one which takes it into account…”

These quotations read to me as precursors of the a priori approach (I may be wrong; I ain’t no Aristotle scholar). Only, Aristotle stops short of concluding that the classifications or categories are of the mind; he did not make a problem at all, as Kant did, the basis of what appeared as scientific laws, and simply took them as a given, just as the ‘average person’ is wont to do. This does not make such a paradigm an ‘objective’ one.

Your saying how reality appears based on someone’s mind? that is Idealism as I said and I reject it.It’s simply not true.

We both know Robert De Niro the actor, but do we know him the same way? Who knows him in an ‘objective’ manner that has nothing to do with their frame of reference? Aesthetics are subjective precisely because minds interact with the aesthetic stimuli in a different manner from person to person; the essence of the aesthetic experience is not contained in the paint on canvas, or the notes being produced by an instrument. And to make a fine distinction between aesthetic subjectivity and epistemological subjectivity is to have a misguided double standard.

[N]o one is purely empirical not even positivists- to ignore reason and be purely experimental/perceptual.

And so we have to explore the implications of our stances on epistemology. The way I understand it, the recognition of our faculties of perception being determinants of our realities goes perfectly hand in hand with recognizing theories and reason as the shaper of our interpretations of facts.

Okay that’s all I’m going to say on the matter; it’s cool that you admire Shaffer and that you advocate liberty all the same.

I don’t want to cover all your points right now- I’m trying to take a break from politics for a while but I want to cover this paragraph.

I am an aesthetic relativist so I understand where your coming from but I disagree.

Aesthetics is subjective because art is largely emotional and appeals to emotions largely and also values- the pre rational and rational.Aesthetics is subjective because there is no objective universal standard on which to judge it.Defining art and what is good or art bad requires unproven assumptions.Fundamentally Art is unlike anything else.It is purely about taste just like which foods are good or nice.Good in this context is what is good for you.There is no objective way to judge it.

Truth is clearly different.Truth comes to use through science(broadly defined as per austrian tradition).Depending on your epistemological views there are ways to judge truth.And what is the most obvious undeniable way, I’d venture the only way, comparison to reality.To say truth depends on your view point is to say,as I have already said that truth is how your perceive it.That there is no one truth but many conflicting contradictory proofs.It’s to say everything someone believes is true.There are a multitude of contradictions in this.It’s impossible to reconsile with praxeology for one and arguing against me has shown you cannot truly believe it since if you did you wouldn’t argue because there would be no point.“False” or “wrong” would cease to be meaningful terms.So even taking your position you HAVE to agree with me.Furthermore even you holding this belief about epistemology results in a contradiction.

That’s all I have to say on this for now.I’ll probably say more in 2-3 weeks once I’m finished my break.

I’m sorry for replying so soon, and perhaps you can address my following comments, if ever you do respond in the future.

Take for instance our discussion here on the Shaffer article. I agree with him, and you disagree. Does that mean that, since I’m the ‘subjectivist’ in our argument, that I am claiming that we are literally creating conflicting realities by which both of us are right?

The answer is no, of course. When I construct an argument, I am not simply asserting without basis; I am unveiling elements of the discussion by which I hope to reduce it to a point where it occurs to you that I do have a good point. Which means, that we both actually agree on the underlying premises, but that a certain premise may have been overlooked, or a fallacy may have been taken for granted. Through the process of argument, we are able to untangle such a premise or fallacy.

If Guy A asserts that 100 times 100 is 10,000, and Guy B says it’s 1,000, both will have to defend their answers. When Guy B realizes that he missed one zero, then the falseness of his answer is revealed for what it is. A ‘subjectivist’ such as myself would not say ‘To each his own,’ because it is logical for me to believe that people have the same faculties by which to arrive at mathematical solutions.

The mistake would be to suppose that the answer 10,000 exists beyond the human beings who are considering the problem. All we can know of mathematical principles is in relation to our being human beings with certain faculties of perception and principles of logic. You can’t take away the human being and expect the same answer of 10,000. Even an alien will only be able to come up with the same answer in as much as its mental faculties resemble a human being’s.

Let’s go back to my Robert De Niro example. Are we to suppose that beyond human perceivers, knowledge of Robert De Niro in a human way is possible?

Perhaps my examples are warming you up somewhat to the notion of subjectivity. Perhaps not. Either way, your agreement would not be a result of embracing an “Everything is true” perspective, but in realizing that that’s not what subjectivity is about at all. Truth does depend on point of view, but point of view, especially about mathematical and logical principles, is not as malleable as you may have thought subjectivists think it is.

Aesthetics is subjective because art is largely emotional and appeals to emotions largely and also values- the pre rational and rational.Aesthetics is subjective because there is no objective universal standard on which to judge it.Defining art and what is good or art bad requires unproven assumptions.Fundamentally Art is unlike anything else.It is purely about taste just like which foods are good or nice.Good in this context is what is good for you.There is no objective way to judge it.

This is more of the “taking assumption for granted” that makes for mistaken conclusions. All your life you may have never bothered considering that art is anything more than emotional. In fact, emotional reactions are not sprung out of nothing but are the result of automatic deductions in your head as to a thing’s relation to you, such as the way you ‘instinctively’ feel anxious when you see an annoying relative. There is still always a stimulus and a reaction, even with something as indefinable or indescribable as art. You may not know exactly what it is about a piece of music that makes you like it, but does this mean there is no logic to your liking it? Does this mean that there is no specific reaction taking place in your brain as a result of interacting with the aesthetic stimuli that makes you like it? Just because you don’t know why you like it does not mean there is no reason for your liking it.

You’re quick to say that with aesthetics, there is no “objective universal standard” but this takes for granted that your knowledge of other things in this world is “objective” knowledge, and that there is an “objective universal standard” by which these things are known. Going back to Robert De Niro, who in the world has knowledge of Robert De Niro by which it could be cemented in the heavens that THIS is the perfect, objective knowledge of Robert De Niro?

So the difference between epistemological relativism and aesthetic relativism turns out to be only on the surface, and that you could not subscribe to one without the other.

The difference is a matter of degrees. With epistemology, math, logic, etc., our truths match other people’s truths, in that our faculties of perception do not vary so as for 1+1 to be 11 for people with gray hair.

With art, our experiences and other variables in our brain make for a variety in aesthetic tastes. But even then, there tends to be some congruence in what we deem melodic and what we deem dissonant. Certain scales sound harmonious to just about everybody, apart from mutants and people who were abused while the melodic scale was playing in the background (again pointing to perception or the Kantian categories of the mind as determinant of our interpretations of facts and experience).

As an aside, you might find Emerson’s essay on ‘Art’ interesting. Oh no, a Platonist! But I saw in your FB profile that you do like his ‘Self-reliance’; who knows, you might like his other stuff.

Are you aware of Long’s thoughts on this subject? What do you think about this: http://praxeology.net/unblog03-03.htm#02 ?

He makes a quite convincing case for metaphysical realism… addressing exactly the kind of objections you people seem to be raising.