John Page

Oxy:

I think all the relativist position reduces to is that all standpoints may be different. Experience seems to have taught us that some work better than others. What's better? Depends on your criteria. What's the best criteria? Well, we'd need criteria to determine that - how about survival, riches, social status, feeling good etc.

Bottom Line: You can only determine whether viewpoints are privileged/unprivileged by applying you own subjective, relative judgements to them. The result - your beliefs!

Cheers, John

Primal

Somewhat against my better judgement I decided to answer Hugo, more for amusement then anything else. And challenge his so-called idea of a more or less "priveleged" relativism based on the "revolutionary" idea of "inter-subjectivity"(which may very well be an oxymoron). Upon which he asked that no one "attack his character" after which, in his next breadth he attempted to more or less, "poison the well" by making an indirect attack on mine:


How sweet. And though the man never refuted my claim(with anything more then circular apeals to the concept of inter-subjectivity) and Encyclopedia definitions (which Kant it should be noted bad mouthed me for using, calling me an "Encyclopedia type", "Incapable" of thinking for myself), which if anything confirms my claim.

LOL. But this argument only works if one is at first taking a relativist position, for an objectivist the definition works well.

Of course if we take a relativist position beforehand, no definition will work. Mainly because there is no such thing as a general definition in a relativist "system."


Or based on a sort of objectivist stance in which definition cannot be arbitrarily changed. According to such a stance relativism is self-refuting whether the relativist whishes to admit this or not.

Oh, I see. Now "absolutist" definitions are ok, cause the IEP says so.....or more likely, cause Hugo finds this conveniant.

Ok, I don't really remember ever being at odds with this definition.....

[quote] Unless anyone wishes to argue to the contrary, i shall assume that there are no difficulties with confining ourselves to a discussion of these two points. [quote]

The fact that such a definition is not "priveleged" according to a relativist.....




Hardly an easy answer as it is very incomplete.

Well it'd be too narrow a statement for us to cry "relativist!". Who said there is no variation in objectivism.....

Actually this fails miserably. First, because who is to say that you are really aware of what you yourself prefer? What if I say then "I don't think you find X to be most beatiful"....now how am I wrong?

Also who's to say that others are really even agreeing? Who's to say they exist at all?

Also even if the statement somehow reaches a level of "intersubjectivity"....a sort of oxymoron as the very existence of such is in need of none subjective verification, so what? Who's to say a statement is now "better" or "best" because it is intersubjective? To apeal here to intersubjectivity is circular.

Problem is that you are still defining "intersubjective" by examples, which are inconclusive.

Also again, making lots of assumptions any one of which may merely be disgarded at any time. What if I say...you cannot even justify the propositions to yourself? Or, "without higher authority...your claim is worthless".

Another problem is your whole ideal is itself open to self-refutation still, many can agree that the idea of intersubjectivity is bunk....what then?

Yes I see what you are saying. The relativist may arbitrarily accept reason as well as disgard it. However if reason is really no more useful then Bible quoting, there really is no point. You still haven;t actually justified anything but merely accepted it arbitrarily. Likewise a person can do so with the Bible arbitrarily, that is what is meant when Keith and others says relativism makes all claims and standards equal. Keith is not saying you are physically incapable then of adopting reason arbitrarily, only that you cannot establish reason as non arbitrary or less then another standard, after the fact.


Yeah ok, and a rationalis relativist can simply declare reason absolute. A christian relativist can declare reason bankrupt. And lastly a religious relativist can define reason as "that which stems from true spiritutality." And no claim can technically, in a non arbitrary manner, be declared more accurate then another. Relativism thus fails to establish reason, just as it fails to establish anything else including itself.

That is a point of contention. I don't believe reason can operate in an arbitrary system on an arbitrary basis. That is to suppose reason operates in an arbitrary manner or somehow, magically, becomes objective though it stems from the arbitrary(which is impossible). Hence I don't believe a relativist can really employ reason at all as a relativist, however they may easily claim to do so.


That is ridiculous. Mainly because foundations in the past actually saw the regress model as proof for foundationalism. In reality, the regress model proves nothing, it only explains things. And to argue from such a model is inherently circular.

The fact is you are ignoring one of three possibilities: that some foundations are justified without inference i.e. are self-evident.



So basically is your critique of objectivism based on some sort of extreme version of LRH? But doesn't such a criticism assume objectivism to be false and LRH to be true before hand?

As for the statement "what came first, a linguistic system or the language?", they arose together most likely, as primtive sounds and abilities to communicate in a Darwinian manner from social animals, then to intermediaries and finally to full blown language as we know it. Basically the veru argument rests of some idea of Irreducible complexity in regards to language.

Or it merely pretends to.



How? By means of apeals to inter-subjective agreement which is not there? By means of arbitrary assumptions?

If the Nazis were the majority then it'd seem like intersubjective beliefs were already set against the idea of human rights.

Actually throwing a die in the context of relativism would not make a position any more arbitrary. Also your idea of what is or is not "useful" or whether or not some things are more "useful" then others; is merely an arbitrary assumption. I can claim with equal "validity" that rhetoric is more useful for Keith and reason for Neo-Nazis. Or I can just say the idea of usefulness is flawed. You seem here to be basing the idea of utility on empirical standards, however the empirical itself simply has no warrant in a relativist system.



The fact is this presentation of relativism: 1) Assumed relativism was true on the onset.

2) Merely attempted to defend the idea that relativism is self-refuting with arguments just as self-refuting(such as those from intersubjectivity).

3) Had many non sequiters, like the idea that the regress model somehow "disproved" foundationalism.

4) Seems to imply that there are only two choices in the manner: absolutism or relativism. Either all beliefs are absolute or all are relative.

If it were but that simple though. Why can't for example some claims be absolute(closed to variation) like those of math, and others be more open to variation(like those of taste)? This is why though I'm not an absolutist I cannot agree to the relativist claim that "all beliefs or standards are relative".

Perhaps all beliefs are not verified by any standpoint but by their intrinsic worth. Perhaps the word "standpoint" needs to be more precise. I imagine for example we'd be in agreement if we said "all knowledge is within the standpoint of the mind." Most definately. However does that necessarily imply that "all standards in the mind are equal, or all contents accurate"? Here I'd have to take contention.

Likewise even if a statement varies, that does not mean all viewpoints are equally privelegdged. The statements of a biologist for example, as well as the scientific method are obviously more priveleged then the statements of Duane Gish and creationist methods when it comes to debates over evolutionary theory.

Lastly, even still a position if there is variation can be considered prileged by the self to the self, provided there is an absolute framework. This would allow for variation without any self-refutation,as the "privelege" of the claim to the self is considered objective.

Thus in place of a self-refuting relativism or dogmatic absoltism, we have an objectivism that allows for variation. That is for example the sort of system I adhere to.

In essence then, it would be nice and I suspect we all long for a single system that would answer all questions concerning knowledge, existology and morality. Relativism provides such an easy answer (its all choice) as does absolutism(its all Gods word etc.)

An example is while a relativist may view an epistemic issue as "all arbitrary" and an absolutist as "perfect knowledge given by God." An objectivist will have to realize there are some claims provisional and some claims not. In which case justification comes not from a simple statement or creed, but by much unerlying rationale.



However reality is not that simple. And in reality not all claims can be treated or justified in the same manner. In this event such an open-ended objectivism fits very well.

Kantian

Sure, which is why I added a few “etceteras,” and the result of observation and analysis may lead to a deep skepticism of the possibility of Plato’s Philosophy Proper (i.e. Truth, Justice, Good, and Etc.). If it is false, you have yet to explain why. Does your disagreement mean that the concepts of truth/moral actions are not subject to skepticism at all in order to achieve a relativist position? Observation and analysis are names of activities that lead to conclusions, which may be any of those ‘isms.’

A person who is brave enough to recognize that the beliefs he grew up with are no longer indubitable, or free of doubts, will develop a mood for skepticism. He will begin to recognize what Aristotle did in the Nicomachean Ethics: "Fire burns both in Hellas and in Persia; but men's ideas of right and wrong vary from place to place." By observation he will notice the diversity in social environments, and begin to evaluate how social environment is related to the contents of belief of what is and what ought to be the case. From the wealth of information at hand, the person may conclude that there are no universal standards for moral beliefs. After this activity the person, having the mood of skepticism, is capable of doubting basic beliefs, i.e. common sense or natural beliefs of the animal, and question the possibility of objective knowledge of anything independent of the knower. Hence, it is necessarily by way of skepticism does a person become a relativist.



The word object also refers to a concept, a notion, an idea, a name, or a symbol the radical skeptic refuses to isolate. An object free of epistemic impurities is not an oxymoron- it’s a phrase designed to describe the ‘indubitable,’ ‘clear and distinct ideas,’ or a foundation of any foundationalist enterprise, which is what most thinkers have done in the history of philosophy – build grand system.

A radical skeptic would be able to withhold judgment or ascertain beliefs in the Pyrrhonian manner. I did not want to get into the specifics, though, of ancient skepticism. Moreover, I doubt it’s necessary to defend the ‘pollution of experience,’ anyway.

That is a social activity – and one that leads to the archetypes of common sense beliefs. If i understand you: once we describe a certain state of affairs as F, and determine its relation to another state of affairs, described as G, then we can establish the relation between two disparate concepts and describe that relation as 'is.'

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

Sweet Jesus, irrespective of whether that is true or not, what does this have to do with you and Hugo?

There is no need to refer to our little fun and games, unless you bear some psychological scars from that little party, and feel the need to play the persecuted card.
:boohoo:
~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Primal

Why does it bother you so much? Kinda hypocritical of you to make such a stink about it.

Oh yes before I forget:

~Materialist~

Kantian

Since it has been a few months and you first bring it up in passing, you obviously can't get over it. Even more puzzling you avoid the question posed.

At least, give it a try.


For your information, the last vestiges of materialism disappeared along with Locke's mythical substratum over 200 years ago. A bit slow on the uptake, are we?

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Hugo Holbling

Hmmm... Already there's too much going on for me to keep up. Still, i'll try my best to answer what i can.

Before i say anything else, it should be noted that this thread began by answering Keith's questions, which were of the form "given relativism, how can you do x"; i intended to move on to demonstrating that relativism is not self-refuting as soon as i could, but it seems that will have to wait for another thread now, or until everyone is happy that the discussion thus far has run its course...

Oxymoron:

Kantian has already dealt with this objection, showing how a denial of knowledge is not a knowledge claim. Alternatively, a relativist could come to this idea by way of antifoundationalism, in which case your only rejoinder could be to foundationalism. Alas, that is dying a death!

Seriously, i'll come back to your problem when i'm able to post regarding relativism not being self-refuting. Please have patience while i take on the not-so-sensible criticism.

John Page:

I appreciate your point, John, but i had hoped to show those who dismiss relativism in a knee-jerk fashion (see below) that those they castigate as relativists understand their position somewhat differently. Nevertheless, your point is well taken: it is of course not my place to demand that the discussion follow one route and not another.

Primal:

How about talking to me, Primal, instead of at me?

Maybe you should set up a poll? I'm confident that people are laughing, but not at me.

Evidently you didn't read my post at all. :banghead: Where did you get this straw man? On second thoughts - don't answer.

No, i showed the kind of objection that arises from an idea of relativism that isn't shared by those who are called or call themselves relativists. Why would i need to poison the well, in any case: you are doing a fine job by yourself of embarrassing yourself...

This claim?

I leave it to the audience: who considers this claim worth refuting?

Notice how you laugh at comments others passed over. I wonder why?

Echoes of 99Percent here, methinks...

Don't you think it's rude to talk about me like i'm not part of the discussion? Notice also that you are the only one calling the IEP entry absolutist. Perhaps you need to wait for the lower intellects to catch up?

This is a struggle for you, isn't it? If you understood intersubjectivity as well as you suppose you do, you'd realize that your objections are empty. Let's suppose i really don't know what i prefer, and that you do - our discussions may continue as before, with the same agreement to agree being reached. This kind of thing occurs in politics all the time.

Perhaps a solipsist has the advantage of reaching agreement quicker!

You didn't follow at at, eh? Blue eyes are better for me if i prefer them; they are better for a group if we have reached an intersubjective agreement on the matter. Call this circular if you like, but it'll only be you doing so.

No, i am assuming that most people in the philosophy forum already understand the concept and using examples of its usage with regard to relativism to answer Keith's questions. In any case, my examples are hardly inconclusive - the question of human rights and their adoption by the UN and EU was decided in just this manner.

Prefering something over another thing is enough for intersubjective justification - sorry you can't keep up. Also, intersubjective agreement is already a higher authority, the scale merely being determined by the level of agreement. Once again, there are more than enough examples in politics and international relations for your objections to be ridiculous.

It depends on the level of disagreement. If i argue that you are a jackass but find no support, my claim will find no intersubjective validity. If i'm trying to explain Rorty to a gaggle of foundationalists i'm likely to struggle. Unfortunately the "tyranny" of democracy will take care of such objection if i am successful in convincing a majority. On a related note, i suspect this is where most difficulty with relativism and antifoundationalism springs from...

Lost you again! When reason is more useful than Bible quoting, i can use it. But wait! -

After what fact? We can use intersubjective agreement to priviledge reason or call it our standard of justification without becoming foundationalists or presupposing that reason is intrinsically more valid as a demarcation criterion than Bible quoting. Feel free to disagree, but at least make the effort to follow me first...

At last we get to the heart of the matter. Let me make this clear and say it slowly so you can understand: relativism... doesn't... want... to... establish... anything. It isn't another form of foundationalism in conflict with yours. Keith's questions asked about justification in the light of relativism and they apply equally well to justification sans foundationalism. Why don't you stop seeing things through your foundationalist spectacles and try to appreciate someone else's position for a change? :banghead:

Please. For the last time: i don't believe that reason is intrinsically priviledged as a demarcation criteria, but i can use it as such if intersubjective agreement is reached that it is the "best" such standard.

Name-dropping time! If it's ridiculous, please post an essay explaining why the work of the following thinkers is in error. I will forward your essay to as many of them as i can (i.e. if they're alive!). So: Rorty, Derrida, Sellars, Wittgenstein, Davidson, Putnam, Kuhn, Eagleton, Goodman, Foucault, Nietzsche, Vattimo, Feyerabend, Toulmin, Fish and Quine. Don't forget the criticism of Dennett, Habermas, Adorno, and so on. What a waste of effort, given that antifoundationalism is ridiculous! :notworthy

Ah! The myth of the given! Perhaps i was ignoring it - can you guess why?

Nice try. How about answering some of those questions i posted that bother relativists?

:banghead: Where is the ontological power associated with relativism?

That's the point.

No. Keith is (or was...) and Objectivist; ergo, i have to bear this in mind when deciding how to argue with him. That was my point and it really is a simple one.

I clearly stated this at the beginning. Try again.

Wrong again. I also stated that i would post subsequently, showing that relativism was not self-refuting, but that initially i would deal with Keith's questions about the consequences of relativism. In any case, Kantian has already dealt with this - why don't you address his post? (Just after Oxymoron's, FYI.) Or are you still afraid of him after the beating you took last time?

Wrong. I gave that point as an example of why antifoundationalism has interested so many people. This thread is not a discussion of the soundness or otherwise of foundationalism.

I don't recall setting up this dichotomy. Perhaps you have priviledged access to what i'm thinking?

Not everyone longs for the safety of the herd. :boohoo:

Easy? You call this easy?

So you say. Please leave your objectivism out of this.

To all:

As i said in my initial post, i'm trying to side with a minority idea for the benefit of discussion. If Primal's talking about me as though i'm not here continues, my participation will not. If everyone else appreciates the spirit of the endeavour, i'll merely put him on my ignore list.

Gurdur

I think most of us do appreciate both your spirit of your endevour, and your patience.

Gurdur

Most likely this view is completely incorrect.
Language as a sub-set of communication is defined by the presence of grammar.
Grammar has never been shown to exist for any other living creature (even the chimp and ape experiments are most dubious; the only animal I'm aware of, seriously, that might display grammar in communication naturally is the Carribean Reef Squid, on which there has been some research).

Grammatical and non-grammatical communication in humans have completely differing neurological bases; i.e., they have bugger all to do with each other.

No, it doesn't come from "underlying rationale" with objectivism, it comes from underlying presuppositionalism.

Can we leave such pointless bickering out of this and concentrate on the philosophy ?

Hugo Holbling

In an attempt to move the discussion forward, here is Habermas explaining why relativist refusal to priviledge viewpoints is not self-refuting (or, if you prefer, why it does not require a God's-eye view to make Putnam's claim that "there is no God's-eye view"), taken from his essay on Rorty in Rorty and his critics:

(Of course he then goes on to criticize coherence... )

Alternatively, we have Kantian's argument previously.

Chances are i won't be able to post at all tomorrow. I'd therefore like to see Habermas taken on in the meantime so that i can see the particular problems that folk have with relativism in order to address them later.