The difference is that subjectivism is an epistemologically meaningful term. In that sense, I am not a subjectivist. Metaphysically speaking, I am not so sure. What does metaphysical subjectivism mean? That the events that take place outside of our brains are entirely caused by the events that take place inside our brains? If so, I am not a metaphysical subjectivist either.
No windows. I take windowless approach. Somewhat similar to Leibniz’s windowless monads. Unlike Leibniz, I don’t think there is a harmony that is pre-established by God. I do agree that there is harmony (i.e. the appearance of monads interacting with each other) but I don’t think this harmony has been pre-established by some central force such as God. Also, I don’t think that monads themselves are the cause of their own behavior. I do agree that there is no communication, interaction or perception between these monads but I take this further and say that there is also no communication, interaction or perception within monads themselves i.e. one monad’s past self does not cause one monad’s present or future self.
Another way to put it, and a much simpler way to put it, is that the universe is a mass of particulars that are related to each other in a specific way. Interaction, in this view, is a reference to a specific kind of relation between particulars.
I mean that these concepts were created by their ancestors, and while they have a memory of these concepts, they have no memory of how and why these concepts were created.
That’s correct. A concept is nothing more than a range of particulars that have some specific effect. I show you a bunch of images and you immediately identify each one of them with a word. Those images that are identified with the same word immediately form a concept. Based on these images alone you cannot form any kind of concept. However, when you relate them to some other kind of particular, such as for example words, concepts are immediately formed.
It’s pretty clear to me that we are born with a priori knowledge. At least in the sense that we acquire it almost instantly soon after we are born. I don’t ever recall having to learn facial recognition, for example. I always knew what a face is.
They can be both provided that you agree that what it means to explain the universe is nothing more than to form a theory based on as many observations as possible. The problem is that they deny this just as they deny that the most significant purpose of theories is to generate predictions.
That’s metaphysical subjectivism.
On the lowest level of abstraction, there is neither “selection” nor “creation”. There is merely occurence. There are facts. You take a look at the facts and then you interpret them. You take a look at how someone acts. You take a look at how that someone acted in the past. You take a look at what happened around that someone in the past. Then you make connections. At the end of your intellectual journey, you arrive at the conclusion that that someone is assuming this or that. You come up with assumptions that have the potential to influence his behavior. You then separate these assumptons into a group of those that are actively shaping his behavior and a group of those that will shape his behavior if this or that happens. All other assumptions that you can imagine are then considered to have no potential to shape his behavior. That’s all there is to it.