Is philosophy subjective?

Question

Science has logic, reason, measurement, proof and experiments. Theories can be postulated then backed up with solid data. Evidence is searched for and analysed. Knowledge is slowly but steadily built up.Tiny accretions accumulate in layers to build solid bulwarks of unassailable fact. Yes there is debate, discussion, opposing theories, but the main thrust is mutually constructive and collaborative.

In the absence of empirical evidence does philosophy always involve arguments and end up being messily subjective?
How do you calibrate or measure what comes down to a matter of opinion or interpretation?

Answer 1

Ayn Rand is the one philosopher I know of that supplies proof for all her assertions. And, she hates subjectivism. Otherwise, you are right.

"How do you calibrate or measure what comes down to a matter of opinion or interpretation?"

Exactly. I suggest you read Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand,

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/excerpt_ch1.htm

She proves what she says. And, when I apply what she says to my life, I find she is right. All the other philosophers that I studies were as you described.

Answer 2

No, philosophy is not always messily subjective. I think many people believe this is the case because of the fairly popular conception of the philosopher as a navel-gazer wondering about things like the meaning of it all and why we're here. Those things come up sometimes when you're talking to folks who have a passing interest in the subject but not with many serious philosophers.

Surprisingly, much of the philosophy that is done at the university level these days is concerned with science. Both the finding of science and the methods used in those findings. We create arguments based on current scientific findings and methodologies and then argue about their merits using a very strict logical system. It is, essentially, the antithesis of subjectivity.

Looking at the questions people ask here and to a large extent, the answers given here, I can understand how one would get an impression that philosophers are just running around saying whatever the hell they want and then calling philosophy. Academically, that is far from the truth.

As a last note, philosophy is often divided in to two camps, analytic and Continental. Continental philosophy is usually worried about the human condition and experience and thus tends to be much more subjective (though this is its alleged strength). Analytic is much more logically based and searches for subjectivity.

Answer 3

There will always be the subjective element in philosophy: give 10 people an assignment to state something already written but in their own words, and all 10 will be different from each other. It comes from the subject, so it is subjective only in that sense. We all use different words, different grammar, different logic in sentence structure.
But if philosophy was not grounded in the need for epistemological proofs of empirical existence, it would not be valid, because it would not be objective.
The implication of "logic," if not of reason, is that the syllogism of each thought must have certain patterns of propositions, and those propositions must have basis in fact of some sort or another even if only assumed. These facts must necessarily match empirical reality, or you get questions like this one:
Say that you live on one of Jupiter's moons: What would your favorite color be?
Taken seriously, the answer could just as logically be "the letter 'Z' ."

Answer 4

Logic is a discipline of Philosophy, not of Science only. Science is the brain child of Philosophy. Philosophy does have its speculative moments, but it is not merely subjective. Logical necessity is objective, for example, all unmarried men are bachelors. The definition of the sentence is contained in itself, so we don't have to investigate outside of the sentence to know it is true. If I said all swans are white, this would require empirical investigation because white and swan are not logically related. Immanuel Kant wrote about this in his Transcendental Aesthetics, Synthetic A posteriori and Synthetic A priori judgments. The second part of your question is mute since philosophy doesn't fit this completely. Other examples of non subjective philosophy would be Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum, Plato's Theory of the Forms, even our famous skeptic David Hume admitted there was certain knowledge of ideas, such as Geometry, even though he believed that cause and effect were merely habits because of constant conjunctions.

Answer 5

What I subscribe to is the notion of truth being in the interaction between the object and the subject. We first have to admit that whatever we view we can only view from a certain point of view. Then begins the step of trying to get out of our bias. And that is why usually the first subject they teach philosophy students is the Apology. It takes a very wise man to know what it is that he doesn't know. That said, its great that you acknowledge that original thoughts can be lost in the translation between the original Philosopher and how your teacher would interpret it. That is why if you're serious about it, you would have to always refer to the original. Most of the time, that means you would have to learn French, German, and Greek. I, unfortunately, have never had that opportunity. Nevertheless, the real object is not what those philosophers say, but what those philosophers were speaking of, which fortunately, we all have access to. Being, truths, constructs, ideas. We all experience the same world although we experience them differently. But I have to take exception to something you said. To be truly non-bias DOES NOT require that you allow for other universal truths. I do not subscribe to relativism. Relativism is a lazy means of saying that "well you and I are both right even if we say completely opposite things". To be non-bias means you are open to the idea that you can be wrong. But when you declare something to be true, you should be able to make a stand on it, although later you can be proven wrong. When you allow for other "universal truths" you stop the learning process. You stop trying to reconcile the evidence you have and the evidence others presented to you. And that is when you stop to learn.

Answer 6

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Is philosophy subjective?
Science has logic, reason, measurement, proof and experiments. Theories can be postulated then backed up with solid data. Evidence is searched for and analysed. Knowledge is slowly but steadily built up.Tiny accretions accumulate in layers to build solid bulwarks of unassailable fact. Yes there is...

Answer 7

Depends.

If one starts with being and the fundamental principles of existence, then a philosophy can be objective. Its conclusions will match reality.

If one just starts with a set of axioms, that may or may not have any correlation to reality, then the conclusions will be subjective because the foundation upon which they were derived doesn't rest on reality

Answer 8

Philosophy seems to be more about thinking forward than thinking behind, as other sciences are. In Science, or in Physics more specifically, we analyze systems, but we cannot analyze the system whilst it is in motion, but only segments which in essence put it at rest.
With knowledge, we know something because it has already happened.
With philosophy, we look forward, postulating things that are ahead of these adaptive systems; variables that change these adaptive systems; outcomes that are changed by other variables. We reason and deduce. We adapt logic from one problem to many, and intertwine it into a grand web of postulations
which leads us to one philosophical theory.

Answer 9

philosophy always involves arguments and is the definition of messily subjective.
it not be calibrated or measured, especially since philosophy argues about the process of calibrating and measuring itself, it's nature, it's relevance; it analyzes the measure, the calibrating tool, the concept of empirical evidence, the reason behind it, it's validity, and will not come to a solid answer, as there the very idea of a solid single answer, a correct way, is a raging argument in philosophy.
science as we know it will not be able to analyze philosophy while philosophy is still trying to dissect science and reality itself.

Answer 10

Physics is a philosophy, no less subjective than any other science. To think otherwise is to be deluded about the true nature of the world.
There are an infinite variety of coincidences and circumstances that 'scientists' can choose to confirm their theories .. they choose these facts which do so.
It's not a conscious decision, they can't help themselves any more than you or I can help ourselves from viewing the world the way we do.
We are prisoners of our cultural world view, trapped in time and seemingly helpless against limitations and constraints beyond our control. To think that 'facts' are unassailable is ignorance of the infinite and miraculous nature of our world.

Oops I don't think I answered your question. Never mind.