Term papers writing service


The objectivity of values i the philosophy of plato

References and Further Reading 1. Common mid-sized physical objects presumably apply, as do persons having subjective states. Subjective reality would then include anything depending upon some broadly construed conscious awareness of it to exist. Particular instances of colors and sounds as they are perceived are prime examples of things that exist only when there are appropriate conscious states. Particular instances of emotions e. Subjective knowledge would then be knowledge of any subjective reality.

There are, however, other uses of the terminology related to objectivity. This is a prominent distinction in epistemology the philosophical study of knowledge because many philosophers have maintained that subjective knowledge in this sense has a special status.

One last prominent style of usage for terms related to objectivity deals with the nature of support a particular knowledge-claim has. A subjective judgment would then seem to be a judgment or belief supported by evidence that is compelling for some rational beings subjects but not compelling for others.

It could also refer to a judgment based on evidence that is of necessity available only to some subjects. These are the main uses for the terminology within philosophical discussions. Can We Know Objective Reality? The subjective is characterized primarily by perceiving mind.

The objective is characterized primarily by physical extension in space and time. When one places both hands into a bucket of tepid water, one experiences competing subjective experiences of one and the same objective reality. One hand feels it as cold, the other feels it as hot. Thus, one perceiving mind can hold side-by-side the objectivity of values i the philosophy of plato differing impressions of a single object.

From this experience, it seems to follow that two different perceiving minds could have clearly differing impressions of a single object.

That is, two people could put their hands into the bucket of water, one describing it as cold, the other describing it as hot. Or, more plausibly, two people could step outside, one describing the weather as chilly, the other describing it as pleasant. We confront, then, an epistemological challenge to explain whether, and if so how, some subjective impressions can lead to knowledge of objective reality.

A skeptic can contend that our knowledge is limited to the realm of our own subjective impressions, allowing us no knowledge of objective reality as it is in itself. Measurement is allegedly a means to reach objective judgments, judgments having at least a high probability of expressing truth regarding objective reality.

This judgment results from use of a measuring device. It is unlikely that the two perceiving subjects, using functioning thermometers, would have differing judgments about the outside air.

The example of two people giving differing reports about the weather e. No, because having two or three or more perceiving subjects agreeing, for example, that it is very cold does not preclude the possibility of another perceiving subject claiming that it is not at all cold.

Would we have a high likelihood of objective truth if we had intersubjective agreement among a large number of subjects? This line of reasoning seems promising, except for another observation from Locke about the possible discrepancies between subjective impressions and objective reality.

An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers.

Primary and Secondary Qualities: Can We Know Primary Qualities? Our perception of sound, for example, is nothing like the actual physical vibrations that we know are the real cause of our subjective experience. Our perception of color is nothing like the complex combinations of various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we know cause our perception of color. Locke asserts that we can, through science, come to know what primary characteristics the object has in itself.

Value Theory

Science teaches us, he says, that sound as we perceive it is not in the object itself whereas spatial dimensions, mass, duration, motion, etc. In response to this point, one can assert that, through science, we discover that those subjective impressions corresponding to nothing in the object are nonetheless caused by the truly objective features of the object.

The Ding an sich is the object as it is in itself, independent of the features of any subjective perception of it. While Locke was optimistic about scientific knowledge of the true objective primary characteristics of things, Kant, influenced by skeptical arguments from David Hume, asserted that we can know nothing regarding the true nature of the Ding an sich, other than that it exists. Scientific knowledge, according to Kant, is systematic knowledge of the nature of things as they appear to us subjects rather than as they are in themselves.

This might require a theoretically perfect intersubjective agreement under ideal conditions. The notion of objectivity thus becomes useless, perhaps even meaningless for, say, a verificationist. Facing any brand of skepticism regarding knowledge of objective reality in any robust sense, we should note that the notion of there being an objective reality is independent of any particular assertion about our prospects for knowing that reality in any objective sense.

One should, in other words, agree that the idea of some objective reality, existing as it is independent of any subjective perception of it, apparently makes sense even for one who holds little hope for any of us knowing that there is such a reality, or knowing anything objectively about such a reality. Perhaps our human the objectivity of values i the philosophy of plato is such that we cannot know anything beyond our experiences; perhaps we are, each one of us individually, confined to the theater of our own minds.

Nonetheless, we can conceive what it means to assert an objective reality beyond the stream of our experiences. This idea does not have many defenders today, however, since Descartes asserted certainty for knowledge derived from clear and distinct ideas.

More acceptable among philosophers today would be a more modest assertion of a high likelihood of reliability for subjective impressions bearing certain marks.

A defender of the prospects for objective knowledge would apparently want also to give some significance to intersubjective agreement. This is simple common-sense. We have much more confidence in our judgments or should, anyway when they are shared by virtually everyone with whom we discuss them than when others showing every sign of normal perceptual abilities and a sane mind disagree. A central assumption behind this common pattern of thought, however, is that there are indeed many other perceiving subjects besides ourselves and we are all capable, sometimes at least, of knowing objective reality.

Another assumption is that objective reality is logically consistent. Assuming that reality is consistent, it follows that your and my logically incompatible judgments about a thing cannot both be true; intersubjective disagreement indicates error for at least one of us.

One can also argue that agreement indicates probable truth, because it is unlikely that you and I would both be wrong in our judgment regarding an object and both be wrong in exactly the same way. Conversely, if we were both wrong about some object, it is likely that we would have differing incorrect judgments about it, since there are innumerable ways for us to make a wrong judgment about an object.

The task seems to presuppose some method of determining objective truth in the very process of establishing certain sorts of subjective impressions as reliable indicators of truth. What could such a method be, since every method of knowledge, judgment, or even thought seems quite clearly to go on within the realm of subjective impressions? The prospects for knowledge of the objective world are hampered by our essential confinement within subjective impressions.

Metaphysical Issues In metaphysics, i. The self, then, is known both as subject and as object. Knowledge of self as subject seems to differ significantly from knowledge of the self as object. The differences are most markedly in evidence in the philosophy of mind. Philosophers of mind try to reconcile, in some sense, what we know about the mind objectively and what we know subjectively.

Observing minded beings as objects is central to the methods of psychology, sociology, and the sciences of the brain.

Observing one minded being from the subjective point of view is something we all do, and it is central to our ordinary notions of the nature of mind. A fundamental problem for the philosophy of mind is to explain how any object, no matter how complex, can give rise to mind as we know it from the subjective point of view. It seems quite conceivable that there be creatures exactly like us, when seen as objects, but having nothing like our conscious sense of ourselves as subjects.

So there is the question of why we do have subjective conscious experience and how that comes to be. Philosophers also struggle to explain what sort of relationship might obtain between the objectivity of values i the philosophy of plato as we see it embodied objectively and mind as we experience it subjectively.

Are there cause-and-effect relationships, for example, and how do they work? The topic of seeing others and even oneself as an object in the objective world is a metaphysical issue, but the objectivity of values i the philosophy of plato brings up an ethical issue regarding the treatment of persons.

There are, in addition, special philosophical issues regarding assertions of objectivity in ethics. Objectivity in Ethics a. Persons in Contrast to Objects First, the dual nature of persons as both subjects having subjective experience and objects within objective reality relates to one of the paramount theories of ethics in the history of philosophy.

One formulation of his highly influential Categorical Imperative relates to the dual nature of persons. One may treat a mere object simply as a means to an end; one may use a piece of wood, for example, simply as a means of repairing a fence. A person, by contrast, is marked by subjectivity, having a subjective point of view, and has a special moral status according to Kant.

Every person must be regarded as an end, that is as having intrinsic value. It seems that the inherent value of a person depends essentially on the fact that a person has a subjective conscious life in addition to objective existence.

Despite widespread agreement that being a person with a subjective point of view has a special moral status, there is a general difficulty explaining whether this alleged fact, like all alleged moral facts, is an objective fact in any sense. It is also difficult to explain how one can know moral truths if they are indeed objective. Objectivism, Subjectivism and Non-Cognitivism Philosophical theories about the nature of morality generally divide into assertions that moral truths express subjective states and assertions that moral truths express objective facts, analogous to the fact, for example, that the sun is more massive than the earth.

In addition to objectivism and subjectivism, a third major theory of morality called non-cognitivism asserts that alleged moral statements do not make any claim about any reality, either subjective or objective. This approach asserts that alleged moral statements are just expressions of subjective feelings; they are not reports about such feelings. Objectivist Theories Among objectivist theories of morality, the most straightforward version declares that is it an objective fact, for example, that it is wrong to ignore a person in distress if you are able to offer aid.

Both facts would obtain regardless of whether any conscious being ever came to know either of them. Other objectivist theories of morality try to explain the widespread feeling that there is an important difference between moral assertions and descriptive, factual assertions while maintaining that both types of assertion are about something other than mere subjective states.

Such theories compare moral assertions to assertions about secondary qualities. Thus, determining whether an object is green depends essentially on consulting the considered judgments of appropriately placed perceivers.

Being green, by definition, implies the capacity to affect perceiving humans under the right conditions in certain ways. By analogy, moral assertions can be assertions about how things objectively are while depending essentially on consulting the considered judgments of appropriately placed perceivers.

Being morally wrong implies, on this view, the capacity to affect perceiving humans under the right conditions in certain ways. Can We Know Moral Facts? For either sort of objectivist approach to morality, it is difficult to explain how people come to know the moral properties of things. We seem not to be able to know the moral qualities of things through ordinary sense experience, for example, because the five senses seem only to tell us how things are in the world, not how they ought to be.

This proposal is controversial, since it presents problems for verifying moral perceptions and resolving moral disputes. It is also problematic as long as it provides no account of how moral perception works.

By contrast, we have a good understanding of the mechanisms underlying our perception of secondary qualities such as greenness.