Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Subjective reality
Message-ID: <524@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 06:59:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.524
Posted: Wed Sep 18 06:59:26 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Sep-85 03:49:30 EDT
References: <103@l5.uucp> <1544@umcp-cs.UUCP> <109@l5.uucp> <1697@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 41

>> There is nothing in:
>> 	Knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence
>> which rules out the existence of subjective truth. [LAURA]
>
>Can you call it "subjective truth"?  What basis can you use for calling it
>"true"?  Subjective BELIEFS, certainly.

    No, subjective TRUTH -- incorrigible and immediate self knowledge of
    one's own internal mental state.

    Like pain (even imagined pain) is still pain.  Or visions (even
    hallucinations) are still visions.  Awareness, love, etc.. likewise.

    Whether or not you chose to attribute reality to such entities, the
    fact is, they are viewed in most philosophical and psychological schemes
    as possessing reality, in some cases greater than that of rocks.

    Note that even `real physical' objects must first be manifested inside
    your so-called mind as internal subjective images before you can be
    aware of the original physical object.

    In other words, any objective fact must first become a subjective
    fact before YOU can know it.

>> It is simply a definition
>> of (objective) knowledge. If you want to include subjective knowledge in
>> this definition, you will have a different belief in what constitutes
>> ``sufficient evidence'' than most objectivists. If you merely want  to
>> believe that this defines objective knowledge (and thus should be
>> restates as:
>> 	Objective knowledge is true belief in the light of sufficient evidence
>> you may then be able to formulate a corallery such as:
>> 	Subjective knowledge is true belief for which there cannot be
>> 	sufficient evidence.

>You can't just stick in the word "true" in that corollary just because you
>feel like it.

    Who else can tell you what you are sensing besides yourself?

-michael


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com