Perspectivism is the philosophical developed by Nietzsche which says that truth is a matter of individual perspective, and that we cannot have knowledge of the thing in itself. It also says that we must adopt one of the perspectives, but no perspective is more correct than its rivals.

The problem with this is that perspectivism is in itself a perspective, and so it is somewhat self-defeating. Secondly, suggesting that we must adopt a particular perspective seems to suggest that at least one perspective is closer to the truth than the others, which contradicts perspectivism's claim that no perspective is more correct than the other.

Perspectivism seems to suggest that there can be no objective reality (another perspective), and that reality is a matter of individual perspective. This sounds like another philosopher putting human perception at the center of the universe. Science tries to discover what's real in spite of our mental perceptions and concepts, and I would say that it is quite successful at doing this (certainly the most successful).

Last but not least, like most of Niezschean philosophy, perspectivism only deals in the negative, not attribtuing any practical theory to the field of philosophy.

that we cannot go beyond these filters to determine if anything corresponds to that which is filtered.


John

Perspectivalism need not claim that every perspective is equally correct, and my reading of N. does not suggest that he himselft understood them to be of equal value or worth. Danto, in discussing this, takes the position that, for example, a perspective that takes into account both other perspectives as well as includes more "data" is superior to a more narrow or limited one.

Nor does perspectivalism force upon its adherent the position that there is no "objective" reality; it does seem to imply that our knowledge of it, however, is perspectival in nature. One could draw an analogy with the Kantian position that noumena are in themselves unknowable because they must be conditioned through transcendental filters to be knowable, and that we cannot go beyond these filters to determine if anything corresponds to that which is filtered.

Nor do I think perspectivalism (or for that matter N's philosophy taken as a whole) contributes nothing to the field of philosophy. First, it reminds the philosopher that other perspectives are possible and encourages him to look for them rather than assume his positions are absolutely correct. Second, it opens up new methods of analysis, and suggests the study of how different perspectives have grown and interacted. Schultz, for example, has investigated both perspectives and "horizons" in his philosophy with subtlety and penetration.
Regards,
John

The problem with this is that perspectivism is in itself a perspective, and so it is somewhat self-defeating.

Is your statement about Nietzsche, your perspective ... or are you claiming this to be an objective truth, that is true for everyone?

Rich

All claims are from someone's perspective

but they need not be only from someone's perspective. The claim may be from my perspective, but I may think that any rational person should hold what I claim to be true.

OK.



Yes, you can think anything you want. It is your perspective.


Rich

Yes, and I can be right too.

Yes, you can be anything you want to be. However, you are going to have to figure out what you are going to do if someone disagrees.

Rich

That's easy. Find out whether the disagreement is sensible, and can be made sensible. Why should mere disagreement cause a problem? There are Holocaust deniers, there are Flat Earthers, there are deniers that people walked on the Moon, there are people who think that the destruction of the Twin Towers was an inside job. There are even people who think they are Louis the 16th. So what?

After reading some of the responses from the posters who support perspectivism, I realize that it is more self-defeating than I originally thought it was.

Perspectivism, as I know the term, implies Equality.

And I have no reason to believe that any two Perspectives are "Equal" or "Identical" because how would that even be possible? (I have no idea)

Once Equality of Perspectives is refuted then so is Perspectivism.

Perspectivism then falls away to Relativity (which I do accept as true).

"The complete Universe is defined/described as the sum-total of all Conscious Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd (4:20)

Equality can be interpreted in many ways. One way would be the mathematical identical. But one can also say that one perspective is as valid as another, and therefore no one should take precedence over another.

Wikipedia has a different take:

"Perspectivism is the philosophical view developed by Friedrich Nietzscheideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives which determine any possible judgment of truth or value that we may make; this implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does that all not necessarily propose that all perspectives are equally valid."

So it all depends upon how one interprets the notion of Perspectivism, which of course is the heart of the idea.

Rich