The problem with perspectivism

[hue-man]

Perspectivism is the philosophical view 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 Nietzschean philosophy, perspectivism only deals in the negative, not contributing any practical theory to the field of philosophy.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by hue-man

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.

In addition to all the good points you have made in this post, it is obvious that knowledge of something cannot be that something itself, for if it were, it would not be knowledge of that something. So to fault knowledge of something for not being that something of which it is knowledge, really makes no sense.

[jgweed]

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

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by jgweed

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


John

But science (and in a different way, philosophy) does go beyond these filters, and not ony tells us that something correspond to those filters, but is, already giving us an excellent idea of what that something is. Naturally, if matters are so understood that nothing could "go beyond" those filters, then, clearly, nothing will. But that would be a consequent of a particular perspective (as N. and you might put it, and one that is mistaken) not how it really is.

[Dearhtead]

Originally Posted by jgweed

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

I don't think that takes into account several data is a good manner if we are looking for the truth. The data just confirm it.

I totally disagree with the Kantian idea that the noumena is unintelligible. It is absurd.

The perspectivism seems to be a Modern surgeon of the scekticism. If the philosopher doesn't believe in the existence of a truth, for me this a real problem.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by hue-man

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

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

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. For instance, that the Sun is many times larger than Earth, or that Quito is the capital of Ecuador, since the evidence for both claims is overwhelming. It may not be, of course, that not everyone believes such claims are true, for not everyone, as Socrates puts it, "follows the argument wherever it leads".

[richrf]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

All claims are from someone's perspective

OK.

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.

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


Rich

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by richrf

OK.



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


Rich

Yes, and I can be right too.

[richrf]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

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