About subjectivism writes the «Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy».

'Subjectivism viewpoint or viewpoints that states that what appears as objective truths or rules in certain spheres, namely ethics, are really disguised orders or expressions of attitude, etc., eg, "Lying is wrong" should be regarded as stating a fact not objective, but as really the order "Never lie!" or an expression of hostility against the speaker's lying, like "Lying! Grrr!" (See Naturalism). An alternate version of subjectivism says that the statements in question express objective truths, but only on human minds, desires, beliefs, experiences, etc., whether the speaker or the general public. "Lying is wrong" would then mean "I, or perhaps people generally disapprove of lying" (Michael Proudfoot and AR Lacey, The Routledge Dictionary of Philosophy, 4th edition, page 390, the letter in bold is placed by me).

Proudfoot and Lacey confuse the definition of subjectivism with the generating mechanism of subjectivism, ie, they confuse the 'formal cause' in Aristotelian language, with "efficient cause." Subjectivism has a dual definition, epistemic and sociological: doctrine that  truth is intimate and unique to each person this, the truth varies from person to person, there is not a single general truth . " It is the most radical gnosiologic individualism .

Saying that subjectivism is just an order or set of orders disguised, as above asserts  the Routledge Dictionary, is to confuse subjectivism with prescriptivism and emotivism (note that there is a subjective emotionalism and an objective emotivism) and it is set aside the intellectual content representative of a particular consciousness. Saying that subjectivism is an attitude of hostility towards the speaker is to confuse the final product (the idea, the subjectivist statement) with the agent that produced it (the emotion of the subject) - we come back, again, to the confusion between efficient cause and  formal cause. Subjectivism in the sociological sense (one person, one mind alone) opposes objectivism in the sociological sense (many minds sharing the same objective truth) but is not opposed to objectivism in epistemic order (truth itself).

Example: we are a minority of thinkers isolates (sociological subjectivism ) affirming that the conclusions of French doctor J.Tissot and American doctor Herbert Shelton, that vaccination is a deaf poisoning of the human organism by viruses and toxins and vaccines are always harmful but we epistemic grasp the truth (epistemic objectivism) while the overwhelming majority of the population (sociological objectivism) believes, wrongly, that the vaccines 'immunize' prevent and eradicate diseases (epistemic subjectivism, one might say). The imposition of the theory of vaccination as "official truth" is not the result of any rational discussion public, enlarged, on fair terms. It is a pure act that the fascist elite semi thinking of physicians and researchers and politicians laboratory carries out with the agreement of the party and uncultured majority of the population of each count

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Rights of author to Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)

In "Off the beaten track", the German philosopher Martin Heidegger (September 26, 1889, Mebkirch-May 26, 1976, Freiburg) highlights the importance of the subject, the subjectivity of each man as the foundation of freedom, and situates Descartes as the discoverer of that fundament. He wrote:

«The task of metaphysics Descartes became the following: create the metaphysical foundation for human liberation in favor of freedom and self-determination for sure of herself. (...)

«The fundamentum, said the foundation of freedom, which underlies its base, the subjectum, so something must be right that meets the aforementioned requirements. "(Martin Heidegger, La imagen en la era del mundo, in Caminos de Bosque, pag. 87, Spanish edition).

And Heidegger continues:

"In Greek sophistry any subjectivism is impossible because it can never be the man subjectum. Never can get to be so because here being is the presence and truth is unblinding ".

"In unblinding happens Fantasy, to reach appearing the present  such as it is to man who is, in turn, present to what appears. Nevertheless, as the representative subject, man fancies, I mean, he moves in the imaginary, in the measure that his ability to representation imagine being like that objective within the world as an image. "(Martin Heidegger, La epoca en la  imagen del mundo, in Caminos de Bosque, pag. 88, Alianza Editorial, Madrid, the emphasis in bold is my own).

This is a serious misconception of Heidegger. In Greek sophistry, subjectivism did not exist? Obviously there existed and Plato had already it in some extent. Incidentally, the fantasy is not only a phenomenon of collective human species: it has a shaft singular individual, different from person to person and it is only the subjectivism. The great philosophical revolution of the transfer of the center of gravity of the knowledge of the outside world to the thinking subject, is already made by the Sophists, Gorgias in particular, if we look at what Sextus Empiricus wrote about this in "Adversus Mathematicos, 65 ':

"In the book entitled 'From Non-Being, or Nature" Gorgias defined three principles namely: first, that nothing exists, second, if there is something is unknowable, and third, if it were knowable, could not be communicated or disclosed. "(Quote from Sextus Empiricus in Pinharanda Gomes, Pre-Socratic Greek Philosophy, pag.273, Guimarães Editors, Portugal; highlighting in bold is my own) ..

The skepticism held by Descartes in the seventeenth century has been used by Gorgias. And the subjectivism of Gorgias is clear: if something is known, can not be communicated or disclosed, is within the consciousness of a single subject.
Heidegger thought confusedly: he called subjectivism, current epistemological which bifurcates into realistic or idealistic subjectivism, the subjective idealism of Descartes that reduces the world to an imaginary contents of consciousness solipsistic ("Cogito, ergo sum").

And the multitude of Heideggerian, whether or not academics, can´t finds these errors of the master, because the University does not think globally or detailed, is a counterrevolutionary institution of installed persons, PhD, people who arrogates have the 'knowledge". In fact, each doctoral is a specialization in a tiny area of philosophical knowledge and is an inductive fallacy calling "doctor of philosophy" to someone who makes doctorate work based on one or some books of an author like Martin Heidegger, Jean Paul Sartre, Peter Singer or any other . A "doctor" in utilitarian ethics or Bertrand Russel is not a doctor in Aristotle or Plato or Hegel and many hundreds of philosophers devoted to various themes and philosophy ...

Heidegger did not have a perfect thought, although he was better than the most of philosophers. And universities or chairs seem to be the Vatican, in its theocratic bow: for them, Heidegger is the Pope of phenomenology, the direct representative of the goddess of Philosophy in Earth. Not so. 'Being and Time' is a book with many confusions, with enough obscure language. Heidegger  did not understand well the ontognosiology of Kant, like 99% of universitary professors, as shown in this blog, in the article "The equivocation of Heidegger to interpret ontognosiology of Kant" in January 9, 2010.

www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt

f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)

In his article “The universal prescriptivism” contained in A Companion to Ethics, organised by Peter Singer, Richard M. Hare divides the descriptivist theories in three branches: naturalism, intuitionism and subjectivism.

«Descriptivistic theories can be divided broadly into naturalism and intuitionism. Both terms can be misleading, but they will serve. The dispute between these is about wheter or not the true-conditions or moral judgements, which according to descriptivism give them their meaning are to be determined by definitions (or, more loosely, explanations of meaning) which refer only to non-moral truth or properties. Naturalists think that this is possible: intuitionists, by contrast, think that no such definitions or explanations can capture the meanings of the moral words.» (R.M.Hare, Universal Prescriptivism, in A Companion to Ethics, pages 452-453, Blackwell Publishers; the bold is added by us).

«One further kind of descritiptivism may be mentionated here, namely subjetivism.» (R.M. Hare, ibid, page 454).

It is evident that R.M. Hare commits a theoretic error by lack of a dialectical thought.

This division should suppose that the three theories would be species of the same genus but they are not. Naturalism is opposed to no naturalism, not to intuitionism. Naturalism concerns to nature, an ontological region, but intuitionism concerns to a form of human knowledge, to the subject. What Hare means by intuitionism should be called supernaturalism or metaphisicism, i mean, a region beyond physical nature. This error had been already commited by George Moore, in his ethical theory.

The greatest error of Hare is to put at the same level subjectivism, naturalism and intuitionism: subjectivism is not necessarily extrinsic to naturalism, there can exist a naturalistic subjectivism (for example: a man considers the birds as gods and try to preserve bio nature as the good ethics) as it can exist a naturalistic objectivism (for example: war and murder are, in general, bad actions because they produce suffering and horror to many people).

On the other side, subjectivism – a sociological concept – is partially incorporated in intuitionism – an epistemological concept. They are not extrinsic necessarily. For example: a person who considers, by intuition, that the «secret esoteric centre of the world is Cibele ´s square in Madrid» is a subjectivist intuitionist.

So, R. M.Hare, this celebrity in ethics, on writing the article studied here, could not think in a dialectical way, and did not rank correctly the genus and species.

 www.filosofar.blogs.sapo.pt
f.limpo.queiroz@sapo.pt

© (Direitos de autor para Francisco Limpo de Faria Queiroz)