Sub-differentshia…

Estudia: Phi, could you please explain what you said about the difference between an intrinsicist and a subjectivist. You said, “The nominalists are of the school of subjectivism but the realist are members of the intrinsicism class.” or something like that.

Philo: That’s what I said. The intrinsicists wants to base human thought on something in reality so they have a theory that projects our thoughts outward into a world apart from man. The subjectivists don’t like this projection so they don’t try to base thought on external facts, so they declare that concepts are simply based on our own creation or perspective on things which are detached from reality.

Estudia: But aren’t our concepts based on facts, the things that exist, and on our choices, how we decide to group them?

Philo: Very good. Both reality and human consciousness are involved. Our objective approach says we know something by our grasp of existents through our reality-based choice. Intrinsicism concludes that knowledge is the grasp of existents by way of a passively absorption or revelations about those existents. Subjectivism sees knowledge as a creation of an existent by way of some active inner thought process on our part.

Estudia: How do intrinsicists know that a concept is proper?

Philo: Intrinsic philosophers like Plato and Augustine realized that knowledge ought to conform to reality but they thought that the only way to have that conformity is to just be passively exposed to entities. If done correctly, this passive exposure would make one aware of concepts just as one is made aware of things on the perceptual level. According to the intrinsicist you don’t need any method of gaining conceptual knowledge. If you ask them how they know an abstract conclusion is right, they will ultimately have to say they know because they just know. They might say they know based on intuition, a sixth sense, extrasensory perception or divine revelation.

Estudia: But material entities do exist outside of us, and they do act on us to produce sensory experiences.

Philo: Right, but not abstract ideas. They don’t create conceptual content by acting on us. There would have to be a mind or consciousness that already possessed the knowledge of any particular abstract idea and somehow chose to communicate the idea to us. Plato had his Forms which could not be part of the reality that we perceive. Forms are abstractions that exist only as the content of some intelligence. Plato’s Forms were in another reality, or other-worldly place, so they would exist in some mind outside our reality. This is where God enters as only an other-worldly intellect could know of the Forms and somehow reveal them to us.

Estudia: So intrinsicism starts out by saying there are things that are real. That reality exists, but winds up concluding that reality is the product of some supernatural consciousness, right?

Philo: That’s right.

Estudia: And, what about the subjectivists? Who are some, and what do they advocate?

Philo: Immanuel Kant and John Dewey begin by advocating the primacy of human consciousness. They reject the mystic approach to gaining knowledge.

Estudia: That’s good, no?

Philo: Yes, but they conclude that there is no other means of gaining knowledge except by some sort of revelation. They conclude that we can’t really know reality and should give up the attempt. We don’t grasp external facts, we create facts out of our own inner consciousness. How we do this is arbitrary and not based on reality says the subjectivist.

Estudia: You mean I create my own world in my mind and it can be different from anyone else’s?

Philo: In the personal version of Subjectivism, yes. In the social version, the group creates a reality. In every version the standard of what is true is that it conforms to the demands of the individual or collective ruling consciousness. This results in what is known as pragmatism.

Estudia: What does a Pragmatist believe?

Philo: They believe that there is no real reality. Nothing is absolute. Nothing is absolutely true in every case and the truth may not correspond to the facts. What works and satisfies the desires of men is what is true and good.

Estudia: Was Aristotle an intrinsicist or a subjectivist?

Philo: Neither, but let’s save that for next time.

Estudia: Adieu.

Intrinsic or Subjectic…

Estudia: Now, Philo, I think I understand the Objectivist theory of concepts fairly well. Are there any other theories and what do they imply?

Philo: Oh yes, definitely. There are completely opposite theories that have come down to us through the ages. The three major theories are Platonic realism, Aristotelian realism, and nominalism.

Estudia: That would be from Plato, Aristotle and who?

Philo: Nominalism was developed by a bunch of skeptic philosophers like Protagoras, Hume, Dewey and Wittgenstein. In this view every object that exists is unique. The members of a group that will form the concept have nothing the same to unite them and thus no metaphysical basis to classify them. The things in a group do have a rough similarity that links some particulars so it’s useful to group various items under a single name. The nominalist says there really aren’t any facts that require a particular grouping, no objectively correct way of forming concepts. People just decide how to do this and create any concepts they think useful.

Estudia: So these nominalists believe that concepts are inside of us and are just arbitrary linguistic creations.

Philo: Yes, exactly, the nominalists are “subjectivists” in that they teach that concepts represent things grouped in your consciousness apart from existence.

Estudia: What about the Platonic and Aristotelian theories?

Philo: Plato believed that concepts were referring to some real thing that was other-worldly or not directly perceivable universals which he called Forms. Things like animalness, table- or chair-hood which exist independent of the consciousness of man and of any real existent.

Estudia: And this is called “realism”?

Philo: Yes, because abstractions are seen as part of reality and outside of or external to the mind. Plato actually taught that we remember entities from a previous life and that is how we acquire the truth of what a concept represents.

Estudia: Seriously? You’re joking right? Is this Pluto, not Plato?

Philo: Negative. Read Plato and weep. He thought that we don’t have to think at all but let our minds remain still, guru-like, and we will receive the truth like a match lit in a cave reveals the art-work on the wall.