Primal

Protagoras you should know had more to his system then the mere explicit. Protagoras is likewise not even offering a definition.....

Likewise your definition does not work as it is at odds with what many relativists, and encyclopedia definitions of relitivism say.

Primal

Actually you do John. If you are to say that reason and logic are not the best means to truth then you have to either offer an alternative or adhere to an "anything goes" approch. Again personal denial does not change this fact.


And I already answered that John. Likewise this question isn't even relevant to my own.

You've dodged this question for about 4 posts now.I'm assuming you can't give an answer at this point.



John the relativist claims no viewpoint is more pirveldged(i.e. better) then another meaning viewpoints are in essence equal.


Not necessarily John. That's a stance held by logical positivists. Not all words need to be clearly defined to be understood. Objecting to an opponent on grounds of lacking a definition "clear enough" is simply weak argument.


If they are fabricated sure.


So they cannot be chekced up on or examined at all then? Your reasoning for relativism is at this point circular John as are your objections to criticism.

Presumptuous to the core my friend. Declaring relativism the heir to atheism first off cuts off all nonrelativists atheists out there: Objectivists,Marxists, Existentialists, Secular Humanists, etc. Lastly it doesn't even follow, if all viewpoints are equal then you cannot maintain that atheism is any more truthful or "priveledged" then theism, even fundamentalism. All you can say is that it's "different".



No actually just noninferred. This is hardly a refutation John, just a subjective,knee jerk condemnation. Your relativism at its fundaemntal level is really no different in form either btw.


That doesn't make sense John as an evidentialist presumes a viewpoint supported by evidence is better/more "priveldged" then a viewpoint that is not. Secondly, your argument against absolutes only works if we go by your narrow postivist view of evidence, and deny truths that cannot be disproven even in theory on a priori grounds.


Nope just noninferred.


John your accusation of faith stinks of bad rhetori based on equivocation but I'll call your bluff.

If by faith you are using the word in the broadest sense, meaning any belief in general then yes it is a matter of faith. But then again so is any belief, including evolution and math.

If you mean though, belief without evidence, usually in relation to a spirtual or supernaturalist system: then no. I believe my axioms are self-evident. Meaning evident and not inferred.

The only way that you can then maintain that my belief must be a matter of faith in the second sense is by showing that any claim, to be evident, must be inferred via a sequential process. Something I doubt you can do. In which case you merely end up with circular reasoning(which isn't really sequential) or infinitism: which is absurd.



So basically you simply believe things on the basis that it's "different." Wonderful method. Again this proves that relativism is reduced to anything-goes-ism.



Explain more. I know a hypothesis can be suspended if it really is equal to another, but then it's not believed is it?



So its possible there are absolutes? In which case, what would prove to you that there is one exactly? And what do you mean by absolute?

Also you had previously posted:

So we cannot know something with 100 percent certainty but that's not the same thing as saying it's impossible? Somewhat intellectually dishonest I'd say.



But then you are priveledging a sensation as well as apealing to an idea that there is an objective world. This makes your standpoint one of objectivism, not relativism. If you are not implying there is an objective world, then tell me what you mean exactly by a sensation being more or less accurate?



What are you talking about John? Do you know what the term fallible means? It does not mean a human is always wrong or doomed to failure. You response was off tangent. A human can succeed 99.999 percent of the time and still be fallible. Just not 100 percent of the time.



Been answered in this post. Saying no viewpoint is priveledged means all viewpoints are equal. Again your objection doesn't even apply. A truths may be in relation to the mind and still equal John.



No my conclusion stems from the Internet Encylopedia's definition of relativism: that no beliefs are priveledged.

My point exactly: you don't make sense. You are saying something can be truer for you, but there is no true or false. That's like me saying there is no "hot" or "cold" but some things are hotter or colder.



That entire objection merely presupposed relativism, as to an objectivist what's true for me may be true for you. Also declaring something nonappliccable because it is not necessarily applicable is somewhat of a weak argument.




(to my claim that John is engaging in circular reasoning when going by strict empiricism).

Oh, okay John. "No I'm not, you are." The response of an eight year old.



But then they are being priveledged over others. Please read the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophies definition of relativism again John: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/relativi.htm

AnthonyAdams45

And you might try reading the Stanford Encyclopedia's http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ definition, filled with excellent critiques of relativism, which at no point stoops to asserting "all systems are equal." It actually adopts my definition. And with only five fragments of Protagoras' books available, you know his was up to something more than the mere explicit? No, sir, it will not do. Now, address the issue. Reduce the Relativistic Schema to "all systems are equal" or retreat from this line of critique.

John Page

Primal:

We have a major disconnect here. I cut and paste from the IEP as follows:

First note that the IEP acknowledges the different flavors of relativism. Arguably, the number of flavors is equal to the number of relativists, none of them priviledged.

Second, you insist on saying that because no standpoint is uniquely priviledged over any other, that all standpoints are equal. This is not what the IEP states, in fact, the IEP hints that as a critic of relativism you are likely to make this claim!
Again, claiming that no viewpoint should be rergarded as uniquely priviledged is not the same as saying they are all equal. Indeed, taking a viewpoint inevitably introduces the "inequality" to which I think you are refering.

Let my try and appeal to your objectivist reasoning by stating that to "equate" n standpoints with each other requires an additional standpoint (n+1) which then becomes uniquely priviledged so you need an n+2 standpoint ad nauseum. To avoid the infinitism (which you mention in your post) that results from trying to attain a unquely priviledged point of view using objectivism, the relativist discards the approach and effectively says "we don't know a priori".

Cheers, John

Abrupt

I feel like I need to comment on the OP's liberal invocation of so many different thinkers (Quine, Putnam, Rorty, etc) in the defense of "relativism", because none of these thinkers are particularly fond of the term, and indeed they would all argue over the two points that Hugo presents as definitive of a relativistic view:

"1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others."

The first point is very vague because it renders relativism relative () to some particular topic. I should think nearly everyone satisfies this requirement, since we are all relativists about something. If I were to say that "fashion" was relative to a particular culture in a particular time frame, it doesn't seem that this would commit me to any general philosophical position about truth, meaning, knowledge, or what have you.

The second point suffers from the same defect (standpoint on what?), and also from the added difficulty of explaining what is meant by "uniquely privileged". This is much harder than one may initially suppose.

As for the label of "relativism", I suggest you look at the Rorty/Putnam debates to see just how much the both of them (but esp. Putnam) dislike it. In fact, Putnam consistently accuses Rorty of collapsing into relativism, linguistic idealism, or some other lamentable position that he should not hold. Rorty's reply to this has been that Putnam's position is so similar to his own that if Rorty is a relativist, then so is Putnam, and also that the inconsistent relativist is a straw man (the incoherent Platonist is a straw man, too, so this seems rather hypocritical of Rorty, if you ask me). But worse than that (worse for you, if you wish to enlist Rorty in a campaign for "relativism"), Rorty has tried to assimilate Donald Davidson's Tarskian theory of truth and meaning, and Davidson's theory is very specifically fitted out to keep relativism and skepticism away1.

Later in the thread, Hugo identifies antifoundationalism as a link between the philosophers he invokes, and that I will agree with. But neither antifoundationalism, nor (neo)pragmatism, nor even "intersubjectivism", entail relativism.

1. It seems to me that Rorty has failed to do justice to Davidson, and that Putnam is right in accusing him of linguistic idealism, but I would suggest a new thread if Hugo or Luiseach or whoever wants to argue against me on that point.

Hugo Holbling

Thanks for joining in here, Abrupt. Your criticism is a good one, but i don't think it's fair to say that i presented that view as a definitive one; rather, i anticipated a good deal of disagreement as to what relativism entails, so i threw that IEP definition out to get the ball rolling.

Thanks for the advice. I already have, of course, as i'm not so full of it as i sound. One of the reasons i was so keen to discuss relativism here was to look into why the label is so desperately avoided, and why it's wheeled out as a end-all criticism.

Yes, i've read Davidson as well, and i enjoyed his wriggling to get away from Rorty's reading of him. This seems to be a common reaction of those Rorty refers to in his own works, wouldn't you say?

What did you make of Davidson's and Rorty's "deal", struck regarding the pragmatic theory of truth (Rorty) and the coherence/correspondence theory (Davidson)?

Again, i quite realize that. Early in the thread (i.e. before i gave up...) i was keen to enlist any and all thinkers who may have had something to say with regard to relativism being self-refuting, as was the charge levelled. I thought i made it clear enough that i was making reference to intersubjectivity to refute the idea that relativism meant no position could be priviledged by an individual. What's more, by dragging in pragmatism and antifoundationalism i was able to get a pretty hot debate going, which lamentably descended into headbanging later on.

Perhaps you'd join in on the other thread? I'm kinda short on time at the moment and am struggling to keep up with that one. Still, my point here is that i've tried to get a debate going and bring in ideas and thinkers that don't seem to have been so widely discussed. If you want to add to it then please jump in. Otherwise, i'm not so damned fool as i may seem but you are more than welcome to think so - you won't be the only one.

Primal

Your definition of relativism: Y is relative to X is no definition at all. Likewise you simply ignore the fact that the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, as well as many other sources, define relativism as the belief that no belief is priveledged. That makes all beliefs then equal.

Protagoras did not offer a definition of relativism and you can get more then the mere explicit from him via critical reading and inference. Like one does with creationists who do not come out and say their views are religiously motivated, though such an inference is reasonable.

Primal

I thought it obvious that we are discussing cognitive relativism.

It's a reasonable inference.If no stanpoint is privedledged in regards to truth then they are equal in regards to truth.


What's the difference John? How can no viewpoint be better/higher/privedged over another but at the same time not equal?



Actually John this illustrates my point very well. The relativist claims that no viewpoint is priveldged but this requires the relativist to priveledge his or her own viewpoint in order to know this.

John that's empiricism, not necessarily relativism. Also you can avoid infinitism by also invoking non-inferred axioms. Which the relativist ultimately must do.

John Page

In order to tell the difference between two standpoints, one must take a third standpoint. It is from this additional standpoint and whatever assumptions it implies that the others can be judged.
No, its a problem with objectivist viewpoints - here's what I posted "Let my try and appeal to your objectivist reasoning by stating that to "equate" n standpoints with each other requires an additional standpoint (n+1) which then becomes uniquely priviledged so you need an n+2 standpoint ad nauseum." Thus, its not a problem for relativism for no a priori standpoint is assumed.
Again, I'm pointing out an issue that prevents one being completely objective - here's what I posted "To avoid the infinitism (which you mention in your post) that results from trying to attain a unquely priviledged point of view using objectivism, the relativist discards the approach and effectively says "we don't know a priori"."

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

But my definition is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, just as reliable, if not moreso. After all, the IEP entry runs around 300 words, offering itself as a quick and easy resource, whereas the SEP entry runs several thousand words and provides a bibliography.

And I know of no relativist that defines relativism in the manner you suggest, nor do I know one who defines it in such a manner as it can be reduced to the manner you suggest. If you know one, provide a citation.

Protagoras is, of course, a red herring so will say no more about him. Anything derived from five sentences is at best, fragile.

Thus, if you cannot reduce my previous definition , or the Relativistic Schema to "All systems are equal," then you must abandon this line of attack, as it is now indubitably a "straw man."