peter m asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 6 months ago

What do you understand by the philosophy terms & descriptions, "Philosophy relativism" and/or "Philosophy subjectivism" & "Philosophy?



"Philosophy historicism" ?

Update 2:

j153e I think its a cop-out giving those references

BUT NOT YOUR OWN. Why can't you simply

put-into-your own words what relativism et al means ?

If you agree with those references then a brief outline

would be acceptable.

Do you think relativism etc is bad ? for philosophy I

mean. Or good for philosophy ? (or undecided of course)

6 Answers

  • 6 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    You can't talk about relativism without einstein.

    since there is a mathematical truth in his train wagon experiment

    not subject to the protagonist of the experiment but to the observer. that in that case subjectivism would be the protagonist, the one who goes inside the train.

    Subjectivism is linked to the relationship, but the relationship does not have to be the truth.

    and historicism, I like it a lot since it affirms that your present is your past undeniable thing.

    let's say it's not that it's true but it's not a mistake. .

    The three philosophical forms approach mathematics. one goes inside the car and the other outside and the other is a consequence of a succession of moments.

    But the most important mathematics is undoubtedly the relativistic solution.

    • ...Show all comments
    • peter m
      Lv 6
      6 months agoReport

      And so a new western Greek culture WHICH HAD TO Leave & forget all-which-went-on-before (in actuality) so to make THEIR OWN MISTAKES - & which philosophy wise Are Our Mistakes Today.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 6 months ago

    phil= search for truth.

    subjective phil= a person's own truth.

    relative phil.= is the discussion that all value is relative or all value is absolute.

    this latter is easy to prove. just pull your car onto the local freeway during rush-hour, then drive the posted maximum legal speed limit in the far right fast-lane.

    since you are holding the absolute, you must be the fastest thing on the road.

    the variations become immediately and increasingly apparent.

  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    I would understand nothing but expect to hear an explanation.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • This is just how I believe these term are meant. I am not certain it is how I would use them.

    Relativism = where / when you exist and the things around where and when you exist, your location in time and space, has a bearing on how you will judge knowledge, morality and truth to be. Thus we cannot claim to be unperturbed in this web of branching histories.

    Subjectivism = manifestation of that which we call morality, truth / knowledge is not objective. It is a representation. But it is all that we can know. (But we are free to believe in the reality of our delusions if they help us live; we are free to believe in an external world even if we cannot exist in it, just a representation of a real world; we can believe).

    Historicism = belief in history. A progression of human affairs. That society is determined by history. That history is important. That history is significant. That periods in history have special interpretations which cannot be judged next to other periods in history.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 months ago

    Not enough at them moment

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    6 months ago

    My understanding is it's badly mangled terminology. It should either be ''philosophical relativism'', ''philosophical subjectivism'' and ''philosophical historicism'' or ''relativism in philosophy'', '' subjectivism in philosophy'' and ''historicism in philosophy'' or ''philosophy of relativism'', ''philosophy of subjectivism'' and ''philosophy of historicism'' or even more simply ''relativism, subjectivism and historicism''. My understanding of those terms mirrors what is found in my copy of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Macmillan, 1967] which is probably similar to the definitions found in other standard references.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.