Talk:Subject (philosophy)

moved from article:

I think the above view of what subjectivism might represent the caricature of subjectivism that people sometimes bandy about, but I don't see how it's philosophically interesting. I'll have to work on this article at some later date. See this link to get an idea of how little this phrase, 'metaphysical subjectivism', is even used. The view described is similar to (but a caricature of) what is known by philosophers as 'phenomenalism' or 'subjective idealism'. Any discussion of that view should mention George Berkeley, Gottfried Leibniz, and David Hume before Churchill. --LMS

I, Martin, am the author (U129960) of the corresponding h2g2 text.

I wasn't sure this should be added to the article, but for what it's worth:

The invention of machines that can "see", "hear", or otherwise observe and record events provides a thought experiment . . . that is difficult for subjectivists to explain.

Yes, but the machines are created to see and to hear. They are still analagous to our eyes and ears. Perhaps the machines would xyphliate, if we ourselves had glizma organs with which to xyphliate. (Get me?) Gyrofrog

NPOV

Why was this added to NPOV (disputes) ??? I don't see a lot of evidence for this article to be in dispute. I think very few edits are happening to this article, and very, very little discussion is even occuring. Is the person who added this just being a vandal? KeyStroke 19:49, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

I sent a message to the user who added the notice, explaining that without an explanation the notice will be removed. Let's give it a couple days, and if there is no reply remove it. -Seth Mahoney 20:56, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this article is NPOV for the same reasons brought up on this discussion page, i.e.,

"the above view of what subjectivism [is] might represent the caricature of subjectivism", and seems to describe subjective idealism
the term "metaphysical subjectivism" is not as common; perhaps we should have a "subjectivism" article instead
the Winston Churchill thought experiment seems to be biased against subjectivism and contributes to the caricature of subjectivism mentioned above

Basically, the first section of the article seems glib and non-encyclopedic, and I would like the information to be backed up by some external sources. --Wikiwikifast 21:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. That doesn't so much seem to be an NPOV issue, so I changed the notice to {{Attention}} and listed it on the appropriate page, along with your comments. I'm also going to list it on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy tasks page. -Seth Mahoney 22:07, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Nice edit. It doesn't seem POV anymore, but it still needs sourcing and revision, as you said. --Wikiwikifast 22:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you much. Its amazing what moving a paragraph to the end can do. -Seth Mahoney 22:32, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Indeed! Wikiwikifast 01:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A sick and untimely joke

(I couldn't resist this)

Surely debate over this article is merely a matter of personal opinion???

(okay... nothing to see here... move on... move on...) One Salient Oversight 05:11, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A note for editors of this article

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style... Avoid self-referential pronouns "Wikipedia articles cannot be based on one person's opinions or experiences. Thus, 'I' or 'we' can never be utilized, except, of course, when they appear in a quotation. For similar reasons, avoid the use of "one," as in: "One should note that some critics have argued in favor of the proposal," as it sounds more personal than encyclopedic." Edwardian 9 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Article title

Shouldn't this be called "Subjectivity" or "Subjectivism"? I'm not expert enough ... philosophically or Wikipedically ... to change it. Sfahey 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If memory serves me correctly, there was a separate article called "Subjectivity" or "Subjectivism", and it was merged/redirected into this one. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]