Philosophy after Objectivity

Heidegger and meaning: implications for phenomenological research

“…Those who assume that meaning resides within an object presume that objects are ‘out there’ waiting to be discovered in their essence. However, these individuals are challenged to explain how it is that one can become free of one's conceptual taking‐as in order to have access to and knowledge about this conceiver‐independent reality ( Harvey, 1989; Moser, 1993). Those (such as Descartes) who doubt whether we can ever free ourselves of our conceptual taking‐as have looked to the subject as the source of meaning and certitude.…”

“…The important point is to understand that both positions presume that objects are separated from the knower. The debate between these two schools of thought presumes a distinction between the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ world – between the subject and the object – that will then commit one to an understanding of meaning that is either objective or subjective ( Bernstein, 1983; Hacking, 1988; Moser, 1993; Rodgers, 1993). This distinction has committed philosophers to either search for a certainty that can never be attained or accept a kind of relativism that makes some uncomfortable ( Bernstein, 1983; Hacking, 1988; Moser, 1993).…”

Externalism and Internalism: A Newmanian Matter of Proper Fit

“…A single person, moreover, might use an externalist notion for certain purposes and an internalist notion for other purposes. 39 Cultivated judgment, in similar fashion, can be constructively imagined as a nuanced version that employs externalist and internalist epistemologies when the situation demands the appropriate option. It recognizes that there are different aims and goals (perhaps what contemporary epistemologists call desiderata), and so internalist and externalist accounts may be viewed as complementary than as oppositional.…”

Epistemic Relativism

“…They fear that the price of abandoning the defense tenet is that, as Feyerabend (1975; cf. Moser 1993, p. 1) proclaimed, anything goes . They see only one way out: denying 2, the prediction, and not 1, the tenet.…”