See my other sub-pages for now. Rejecting Philosophy
Or my main Philosophy page
Sometimes it’s easier to argue against a position, before making explicit a positive one.
Here are a couple of philosophical position that I DO accept. (more in depth explanations will come later)
Agreed as it’s stated in the wiki article above: “Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject‘s individual feelings, imaginings, or interpretations.”
For me this seems common-sensible, and attempts to refute objectivity are self-defeating and circular (they refute their own statement). Further criticisms can be raised that this is merely semantics in play vs. any reference to actual truth, and that’s a far better argument, but I still believe it can be argued that it fails common sense and logic to deny the existence of objectivity.
Objectivism [Partially] as I reject it’s ‘closed physical universe’ metaphysical assumption)
Strengths: As a Political and Epistemological theory, it is very strong; as a general Ethics theory, in its strong defiance to collectivism, it is strong.
Weakness: Objectivism’s Metaphysical position is fair to weak in my opinion. It’s ‘primacy of existence’ presupposes from the start a ‘closed physical universe’, which I reject, as this assumption must be asserted a priori (without any proof) and seeks to completely ignore the logical possibility of interaction “outside” by a divine agency. (‘open system’ metaphysics)