Formal Analysis
P1: To know that something exists is to experience its existence immediately and directly.
P2: Human senses are too limited to discover the objective truth.
P3: Context dictates the truth.
C: Subjectivism is the correct way of viewing knowledge.
Essay
There are three different perspectives regarding knowledge, definition, and existence – objectivism, subjectivism, and skepticism. Skepticism denies any possibility and reality of knowledge, while objectivism implies that the truth is universal for everyone. Subjectivism states that knowledge is subjective, and the notion of truth can vary between individuals. In this paper, I will argue that subjectivism is the correct way of viewing knowledge. Therefore, I will first demonstrate the accuracy of the claim that to know that something exists is to experience its existence immediately and directly. Secondly, I will argue that human senses are too limited to discover the objective truth. Finally, I will prove that truth cannot be universal and objective as it is tied to the context of each particular situation.
Firstly, one of the most important claims of subjectivism is that the only way to have knowledge about the existence of anything at any particular moment is to experience it during that moment. This is true due to the changing nature of the world – what was true a moment ago might not be true right now (Sullivan). A person on the news can tell us about the situation on the stock market, but it may be transforming during that speech, making the information already obsolete the moment it reaches the audience.
The same can be said even about the most basic “objective” facts, such as the weather, the color of the sky, and even the shape of the Earth, as all of these things may transform. Moreover, as the human ability to experience different things simultaneously is very limited, it is only safe to assume the existence of one’s immediate surroundings. Therefore, it is impossible to claim the objectivity of any fact, as it can only be verified by experience at a particular point in time, and human verification capabilities are severely limited. Thus, it is only feasible to assume the existence of subjective knowledge within people’s immediate reach.
Secondly, I would like to further the point about the limited nature of human senses. Humans only perceive information within a narrow range of their natural senses, including vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. However, in many cases, the properties of both animate and inanimate objects go well beyond the scope of human senses. We do not see radio waves or infrared light; we cannot possibly hear the communication of many living beings that occur at frequencies inaccessible to our ears. The more humans learn about the universe, the more we understand how limited our abilities to perceive through natural senses are.
Subsequently, more and more artificial sensors are being created at ever-increasing speed to advance human knowledge about the world. However, while being incredibly precise and powerful and by far outdoing the human senses, these devices are still limited by the technological capabilities of mankind. Therefore, at the moment, humanity cannot claim to have access to objective knowledge, as our species is too limited in terms of the ability to learn. The supposedly objective knowledge about any fact can be rethought later based on the new data that had previously been out of human reach. Thus, only a limited subjective understanding of any object’s current state can be safely assumed by a human being.
Finally, while facts can speak for themselves, the context dictates the truth. This is especially relevant when considering human actions, where there is not much room for objectivity. From the viewpoint of objectivism, it can be stated that murder is always foul. However, the reality creates a more comprehensive picture that does not fit into the framework of objectivism. For instance, it is acceptable for humans to sentence some of them to death for heinous and large-scale crimes, yet, in essence, this is just murder. The same can be said about any freedom fighters who can be praised for murdering people. The difference is that the people they murder are perceived as invaders, therefore, making their deaths socially acceptable. The same logic can be applied to most concepts with strong negative or strong positive connotations – they all depend on the context and cannot be universally bad or good.
Overall, in this paper, I have demonstrated that subjectivism is the most justified approach toward knowledge. It was demonstrated that due to the constantly changing nature of the world, no objective knowledge could be collected beyond one’s immediate reach. This argument was reinforced by explaining the limited nature of humans and even artificial senses available for mankind to explore the universe. Finally, it was shown that any facts regarding the actions of groups and individuals could not be viewed as objective due to the role of the context in human life. These arguments prove that subjectivism is the correct way of viewing knowledge.
Work Cited
Sullivan, Daniel. An Introduction to Philosophy: Perennial Principles of the Classical Realist Tradition. Ravenio Books, 2015.