Introduction
In the great tradition, naturalism and subjectivism were the great contenders with their definition being in terms of rival types of method. However, this does not mean that neither the traditional spiritualism nor that of subjectivism, disappeared from the scene, more so in terms of dialectical materialism, for it was superseded with naturalism, as it had its own continuous development.
Naturalism comprises all varieties of materialism and allows more so cautious points of view qualified by pantheism and agnosticism. The definition of naturalism is very useful as it is “the philosophical generalization of science,” with its different forms determined by the method and content of the sciences (Hospers, 124). Rapid developments of special sciences and more specifically the impacts of evolutionary movement of the nineteen century brought about a violent reaction in the traditional beliefs and institutions this reaction became the main motivation force in the philosophical world. Naturalism tries to understand the world through practical application of knowledge.
In regard to Hospers thoughts, he uses the chemical approach to respond to the felt disparities of the earth (p. 312). When he thought of reducing substances in the atmosphere like the oxygen, this would imply that the ozone will never exist and without it, this indicates that the earth’s surface is actually at risk for there is nothing to shield surface from the adverse heat from the sky due to the UV radiation emitted. He felt that approaching the giving the best approach to solutions was through the effecting of the atmospheric nature only to realize all he thought could never be so. He thereby asserts that earth can never have a reducing atmosphere. In his second attempt in the world of naturalism in determining if life could evolve from organic matter naturally by random chance only to find that all was wrong. According to this philosophical theory supernatural causation is non-existent and that science and history does not occur in a priori. Naturalism argues that the highest truth can only be achieved through science that is natural in its own way. Reality cannot be justified through abstractions like metaphysics or epistemological reasoning.
Naturalism therefore holds that the universe can best be explored through a modern view of science. Among those with ideas of philosophical naturalism were the works of the Ionian pre Socratic philosophers, they are said to have taken in the principles of empirical investigations that were strongly inclined to naturalism. They were among the first people to give explanation about the nature of without acknowledging the efforts of the supernatural forces. Later on their ideas seemed to be outdated and they started getting replaced by modern ideas which also did overlook on the supernatural causes which most Christian relied on the occurrence of miracles rather than the natural cause of a thing in the face of nature.
The main theme of subjectivism is the analysis of experience. Naturalists, Pragmatists, naturalistic, positivists and realists, have put a lot of focus on this premise.
The current study includes consideration of the analysis by conceptual pragmatism (C. I. Lewis), subjectivism (Edmund Husler), and naturalism (John Dewey) (p. 124). The former is of unusual interest for its elaboration as a universal philosophy of idealism. The issue of a consistent and complete scientific philosophy; whether it is called “naturalism” or “materialism, and “critical” or “new,”(Frank, p. 26) is clearly determined by the limits of a subjectivity procedure, and by examining the arguments in support of subjectivism. This theory holds the view that something can only exist if another person is aware of its existence in his or her capacity as an individual. An understanding of the reality is based on a person’s viewpoint of the world and it cannot be concluded from the whole but as a reflection of personal perception.
Subjectivism does not try to define the world in moralistic or immoral actions as accepted by the general population as seen from the naturalistic perspective but argues that an individual’s own approval of an action as moral or immoral determines the acceptability that action in as far as it is good or bad. Neither does it deny the presence of considerable disputes concerning morality and knowledge, it simply argue that all these are inventions of the human animal.
Philosophy and the Philosophy of the Recent Past
In order, to make some agreements about naturalism and realism, I will therefore begin with the perspective of philosophy by going back briefly past philosophical discourse. In my view, philosophical terms like “philosophy” doesn’t discriminate natural kinds. I think of philosophy as part of literature and history. There is need to appeal to “contingent arrangements” so as to explain what counts as philosophy and its “problems”. On the same note, we should understand the meaning of philosophical terms and use them at any given time in his senses. (Faber 2005)
Faber used naturalism and materialism interchangeably, “having the advantage of flexibility” (p. 312). However; he acknowledged that there are different alternative versions of both. Consequently, he included “subjectivisms,” to include all forms of idealism, I will consider phenomenology and different types of existential philosophy. However, the most striking issue about his analysis is the lack of mention to the positivism paradigm. We therefore, need some history.
Mandelbaum argued that in the nineteenth century, “philosophical thought was mainly concentrated on two spheres, each one of which had on its own a large extent to continue perpetuating itself and which approached problems of similar nature, albeit by employing different views.” (Mandelbaum, 1992). Another issue is the problem of “knowledge” and more especially the role and nature of “science” in people’s daily life. These two positions are “metaphysical idealism and positivism.”(p. 126). He uses a quiet approach to positivism by asserting that “metaphysical idealism confers that clues to understanding the final nature and circumstances of reality can be understood through experiences of individuals and these occur through characteristics that define a man as spiritual in nature” (Mandelbaum, 6). Idealism was a motivation of distress that freedom, God, and distress of immortality were undermined by the new “science.” We therefore, need to fill in positivism, and go back to define materialism and naturalism.
In the 19th century, the centre stage was about science and its ideologies about man and nature. Materialism and Positivisms both held on to “science”. This was critically, much contested until late in the century. Both positivisms and materialisms opposed traditional theologies. However, it is wrong to assume that the nineteenth century positivisms were materialisms. Engels had an anti-positivist conception about science, hence, was closer to the reality in arguing that positivists were each covert idealists (Hospers, 1992).The Positivists came up with a distinct and an amazing influential ideology of science.
They accept Kant’s arguments that science should only be restricted to “phenomena” and argues that it is wrong to think that metaphysics can provide ultimate reality (Hurley, 1989). Some assume reality that is not knowable, while some deny this while others; don’t see any importance with regards to this question. Mandelbaum summarized the distinctive features of positive philosophy and asserted that. “Positivism views knowledge as a factor of experience, it asserts that a naturalistic and scientific view of the world that confines itself to metaphysics alignments is bound to discover experiences that are not reliable. The positivists were a manifestation of empiricists, hence, it is easy to see how, as Mandelbaum puts it, the positivist understanding of science was to some extent put under influence by traditions bordering on idealism.” (p. 136).
Even though materialism was a widely held in the 18th century, Mandelbaum argues that despite some disagreement on this issue, there were still few materialists in the19th century. In this sense, the definition put forward by Mandelbaum summarizes the essence of materialism:
“Seen from a wide point of view, materialism is only concerned with those things that occur naturally and which possess a character that exists by itself as an autonomous entity.” Therefore, in this case, we should classify as a materialist anyone who agrees on all of the following agreements: that there exists independently existing world; that man, like other objects, is a material entities; the human mind does not exist as a different entity from the human body; and lastly, that there is no God or rather any other non-human being whose existence of material entities (Faber, 2000) distinguished from Engels’s “dialectical” approach (Rosen, 1967)
Problems of the Debate over Idealist approach of science
The battle over the physical sciences has been won by the positivism school of the 20th century. However, the existing status of “the external world” had not been solved. It forms, the problem articulation. I will not attempt to review the often puerile debates that characterize this battle and the reason it has been so difficult to be clear about the major issues. In this case, I would insist that this argument is a philosopher’s problem in that, “the things that we come into contact through our key senses, that is smell, touch and listening are independent of the actual expression of those senses”.
(Faber, 2000). For this reason, only philosophers can raise arguments about this. Second, we should not doubt that we can learn from experiences. Even though philosophy and science remain puzzled how this occurs. Therefore, every human community has witnessed this dilemma of failing to arrive at a judgment dealing with the naturalism vs. subjectivism realm.
Human Problems
I note that there were two problems of the idealism/realism. The second is not about philosopher’s problems, but on how we should live. I support Dewey’s theory of inquiry as naturalism. This is because, as Farber argued, there are two ways of addressing these problems. One is a naturalist who argues that naturalist inquiry can solve these questions while the other is an anti-naturalist who denies this. Currently, anti-naturalism has two forms: the appeal to authority of traditional theology, and the subjectivists of positivism. (Rosen 1967)
Our daily papers are filled with several examples of the first however, the central idea is provided by Hare and Madden in their book, Evil and the Concept of God. They assert that, evils should be removed as far from humanly as possible; however if indeed, they are not remediable, they serve some theological values that are not obvious to us. Well, we should not blame Jupiter for the lightening, or rather a jealous god for natural death. Homicide is indeed blameworthy, especially when there is massive slaughter of people. The system might be having faults, but it mostly functions through a combination of behaviors committed by individuals in their own capacities and who should be held responsible for the actions they carry out. This is the moral requirement. In my own opinion, those who rule the world should be held liable for activities they have committed in their individual capacities and contributed to human suffering. And those who support them are also culpable. Positivism is the epitome of science, but the science losses value if it comes under scrutiny for losing relevance in its relations with morality and political dispensation.
In conclusion therefore, both subjectivism and naturalism can be applied to understanding the realm of the world from a philosophical standpoint. Although these two provide opposing arguments in their understanding of human nature, they try to rationalize the understanding of the world as seen from the perspective of individuals and the natural occurring events of the world. In essence pursuance of science with either of the two philosophical paradigms in mind is should be accompanied by an expectation of justifying their position. Since naturalism is the centerpiece of science through which the world can be well understood, it has become the core underpinning of most scientific discourse.
References
Faber, M. (2003) naturalism and Subjectivism: New York: Springfield Publishing.
Frank, J. (1992) “Critical Notice” Australasian Journal of Philosophy Vol. 70, No. 4; (pp. 475-488).
Hospers, J. (1997). An introduction to Philosophical analysis. Chicago: Routledge.
Hurley, L. (1989). Natural Reasons: Personality and Polity. Oxford: Oxford University press
Rosen, P. (1967). Moral Philosophy: a Systematic introduction to normative ethics and meta ethics. New York. Bantam Books