Qualified Subjectivism

Language philosopher Bry Willis examines the common tendency for mystical thinkers to misinterpret deflationary philosophy as a form of spiritual wisdom. While both perspectives acknowledge the limitations of language, they diverge sharply in how they treat the resulting silence: the mystic treats it as a sacred revelation, whereas the deflationist views it as a diagnostic tool for moving on. The author argues that this confusion stems from a shared aesthetic of restraint and a human impulse to fill conceptual voids with hidden meaning. Even figures like Wittgenstein have faced this issue, finding their attempts to simplify language repurposed as metaphysical sacraments. Ultimately, the work distinguishes between clearing intellectual space and consecrating it, asserting that philosophical subtraction is not a gateway to the divine.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/24/why-deflationary-philosophy-keeps-attracting-mystics/

The provided text explores the complex nature of facts, arguing that the term is not a single, stable concept but a family of distinct categories. By distinguishing between ontological events—what actually happens in reality—and epistemological assertions, the author highlights how we often mistake human interpretations for objective truths. The source identifies various classes of information, ranging from raw physical occurrences to institutional designations and personal memories, which are frequently and erroneously treated as interchangeable. This linguistic overlap allows the authority of certainty to be smuggled into claims that are actually based on inference or social convention. Ultimately, the passage asserts that while reality is singular and absolute, facts are constructed artefacts assembled through sensory registration, cognitive framing, and linguistic encoding.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/23/reality-happens-once-facts-happen-many-times/

This text explores the philosophical distinction between objective reality and the human construction of facts. Using a car accident as a primary metaphor, the author argues that while an event occurs physically, our understanding of it is always filtered through personal bias, sensory limitations, and linguistic framing. The source suggests that legal and social systems do not uncover an absolute truth, but rather designate a specific narrative as "fact" to achieve institutional closure. Even with advanced technology like cameras and expert testimony, the result is merely a more complex model of the event rather than direct access to the truth. Ultimately, the passage contends that facts are social artefacts created to assign responsibility and navigate a world where true objectivity is unattainable.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/22/the-trouble-with-facts/

This text examines a speech by Mark Carney to explore the crumbling facade of the rules-based international order through the lens of Nietzschean philosophy. The author argues that global institutions were never truly neutral, but were instead functional fictions sustained by American hegemony and a collective agreement to ignore their inconsistencies. By admitting that international law is applied unevenly, Carney inadvertently validates Nietzsche’s assertion that order is a performance of power rather than a discovery of universal truth. The source suggests that figures like Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have punctured this illusion by refusing to speak the language of polite diplomacy, exposing the structural asymmetries underneath. Ultimately, the article posits that once the gap between rhetoric and reality is acknowledged, society cannot return to its previous state of innocence or believe in the old maps of global integration.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/21/mark-carney-explains-nietzsche/

Philosopher Bry Willis examines the modern shift in moral psychology, which argues that human beings prioritise instinctual emotions over logical deliberation when making ethical judgements. The author critiques several foundational books in the field, noting a contradiction where researchers prove that reasoning is a secondary, defensive tool, yet still suggest rational dialogue as a solution to social conflict. By using the metaphor of an elephant and a rider, the source illustrates that our subconscious drives dictate our direction while our conscious minds merely justify the path. This analysis suggests that deep-seated moral disagreements may be structural and immune to factual persuasion, a reality currently exploited by social media and political framing. Ultimately, the author warns that continuing to rely on Enlightenment-era rationalism ignores the scientific evidence of our inherently tribal and intuitive nature.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/21/moral-psychology-critique/🎥 https://youtu.be/eWHJk9TcZH0

This text challenges the widespread belief that human thought is fundamentally dependent on or identical to language. By referencing the neuroscientific research of Evelina Fedorenko, the author argues that linguistic processing and complex reasoning occur in distinct areas of the brain. Using examples like chess and Sudoku, the source illustrates that high-level mental tasks often rely on non-verbal patterns rather than internal monologues. Instead of acting as the primary engine for cognition, language is portrayed as a secondary tool used for summarising and communicating ideas after they have already formed. Ultimately, the piece suggests that the mind functions as an active workshop where thoughts exist independently of the words eventually used to describe them.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/19/thinking-without-words-and-other-heresies/

This text critiques the modern pursuit of a definitive scientific truth regarding human consciousness, likening the academic search to a disoriented journey through a desert. The author argues that while researchers believe they are making linear progress, they are actually just moving between different theoretical frameworks that offer only temporary stability. Instead of being an objective entity waiting to be discovered, consciousness is presented as the very lens through which we experience reality, making it impossible to observe as a separate object. The source suggests that various models, such as integrated information or predictive processing, are merely different ways of mapping a territory that has no final destination. Ultimately, the piece encourages a shift in perspective, moving away from the illusion of total discovery and towards an understanding of why we continuously mistake temporary theories for absolute truths.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/19/wandering-elephants-in-the-desert-of-consciousness/

This text introduces a philosophical perspective that characterises human consciousness and existence as an unplanned accident rather than a purposeful design. The author argues that the word "why" is a linguistic trap that falsely implies the existence of a cosmic intention or a grand justification for our reality. By contrasting it with the more practical inquiry of "how," the passage suggests we should focus on observable mechanisms and causal chains instead of seeking metaphysical meaning where none exists. This shift toward "suchness" or radical acceptance allows individuals to abandon the pursuit of ultimate reasons in favour of appreciating the tangible, local experiences of life. Ultimately, the work advocates for a form of sober nihilism where discarding a "broken map" of false expectations leads to a more honest engagement with the contingent world.👉 https://philosophics.blog/

l observers but are instead born into pre-existing contexts such as history and language. This foundational state means that there is no objective vantage point outside of one's own lived reality, as every individual is inherently shaped by circumstances they did not choose. The author challenges the pursuit of pure objectivity, suggesting it is a fictional ideal that ignores how our perspectives are fundamentally mediated by our surroundings. Rather than viewing subjectivism as a matter of personal whim, the passage identifies it as a structural constraint that defines how we process information. Ultimately, the text asserts that all knowledge and judgment must occur from within this situated experience, as there is no external authority to validate our perceptions. This perspective frames human existence as an ongoing engagement with a world already in motion, rather than a series of detached, rational choices.

The provided text explores the philosophical concept of qualified subjectivism, which asserts that human beings never experience reality in its raw form. Instead, all knowledge and perceptions are filtered through lenses such as language, culture, and biological systems. The author argues that because there is no unmediated access to truth, the individual subject must be viewed as the final judge of all claims. This perspective does not promote total randomness or solipsism, as the physical world still provides significant resistance and constraints on our beliefs. Ultimately, the source suggests that persistent disagreement is a natural result of these different internal frameworks rather than a failure of logic. This framework encourages us to abandon the search for a neutral, god-like perspective and accept that objectivity is simply stability across different subjective experiences.👉 https://philosophics.blog/2026/01/16/qualified-subjectivism/