Adrian Selby

My brain hurts i've put it in a new thread so as to not further hijack this one.

John Page

Primal. First, I am claiming that there are no absolute truths, that a truth is relative to one's viewpoint. I'm sorry if that's incoherent to you but coherence is a norm applied to theories - I am neither supporting or defending tests of coherence.

It seems that in the "truth game", one is forced to assume or accept the validity of an axiom. Now, if you are arguing that incoherent systems can exist, this I can agree with. I do not believe that relativism is incoherent, not do I believe it is "true" in the absolutist or objectivist sense.

The issue seems to be that you are applying an absolutist mindset to a mental and physical world that is (apparently) ever changing. Do you think that coherence is a useful test? If so, why?

Cheers, John

John Page

This is your assertion! I was trying to illustrate to you the error in your reasoning by showing objectively that viewpoints existed that did not hold as valid the "normal" rules of logic. The point is that I can hold the dialethetic view, believe it to be true and be no more self-contradictory than supporters of propositional logic.

This is a "flat earth" type argument.

Roflmao!!!! . Can we then return to the complete absence of a definition from Primal of the terms "I" and "exist" in Primal's absolute truth "I exist".

No. Do you? If so please prove.

Cheers, John

John Page

I didn't say that, I was merely objecting to the author's implication that relativists are sources of evil and corruption!

Well, if you wish to believe that, Primal. Relativist viewpoints explain how things can be considered useless, contradictory or invalid. Of course, those such viewpoints are subjective.....

Cheers, John

Primal

Even though a belief=idea accepted as if true.

Also how do we establish standards for coherence?

To an extent but one's idea of coherence I believe is based on certain standards one has accepted. Why? Basically because epistemic standards determine the truth value of a given claim.

That's strange: I never said contradictory viewpoints don't exist: I merely said they were illogical.

Also how is it that a position that embraces contradiction is not contradictory i.e. self-refuting?

How so? I'm merely pointing to a non sequitur.


And I've already explained why this is unecessary. Now let me ask you why I must be able to define these terms in order to establish the fact that "I exist."?

Okay, but by that token I want you to prove all beliefs are relative .

Well lets start with "I think therefore I am". We can start with the statement "I think" which is axiomically true.(Do you think it untrue?) (BTW the "I" refers to the reader, just to avoid nit picking) and see it as a contradiction(with LNC being absolute) for a nonexisting thing to think, thus must conclude that since I think, I must exist. Show me how that is wrong or a matter of "viewppoint" John(I always thought it a matter of abstract thought.)

Did he imply this? Also how is the reader supposed to gather that by comparing the author to a bloodthirsty Cardinal?

Also I don't see how, even if he did, a person who calls absolutist doctrines a "cancer" has grounds to talk.

I.E.
Well John simply dismissing his arguments without reason is hardly a compelling criticism. That's actually an argument from incredulity that is considered a pseudorefutation. Theoretically a person can say that to any article.

John Page

Especially so! That something is true can be considered as an idea accepted as if true.
Social convention, trial and error etc.
But truth value is determined by an ontological process that results in the supposed knowledge - knowledge of truth values is not magical. The ontological process is perceived by us as epistemic standards.
I think your statement that contradictory viewpoints were illogical s illogical. Then again, it depends what system of logic you're sing.
Embraces? What does that mean? If one understands the phenomena that result in contradictions why should there not be a position that "embraces" same.
You have a short memory, see previously where I argued that a supposed "self evident" first-person truth is experientially yours alone. What basis do you have for extending your self- evident ruth to become an absolute truth?
Give me a list of all beliefs and I'll start work on it.
I repeat, you're entitled to your viewpoint, as such I don't consider it "wrong". Absent any absolute truth, objectivism (if that's what you're arguing) founders by espousing the primacy of (subjective) reason and (fallible human-developed) logic. If ssuming the LNC is absolute works for you, dream away.
One unfounded allegation deserves another. Sense of humor, please.
No, in practice a person can say that to any article.

Cheers, John

Primal

But they can still be wrong.



And what makes social convention the arbiter of such matters? Why should we care about trial and error? In essence: how are trial and error as well as social conventions epistemically established as standards?


Yes though I fail to see your point. I agree all my epistemic standards can be reduced to neural activity, this however does not refute mt standards of make them any more questionable.




Well I'm sorry but I don't think you can construct any system of thought you want, slap the label "logic" on it and actually say its epistemically equal to the real thing. Basically all you have then is a new system of thought, to which the label "logic" is simply misleading and to a logical man: false.


Accepts as valid. Allows for.


Because there is a difference between aknowledging that such thought exists and saying that such thought is justified. For example: I can accept the fact that straw men type arguments exist: this hardly means I accept them as valid now.



And what about it being limited to myself disqualifies it from being an absolute truth? All I think it needs to be absolute is certainty, not necessarily universal application.



John it's not my job to provide your evidence for you. Further more you are making a claim that is universal in scope: this involves tackling more then just a few examples.



John you have merely went in cirlces there. I.e. my viewpoint and standards are subjective because they are subjective.




There is a matter of degree here John and calling someone's philosophy a "cancer" goes a bit too far in terms of "humor." Had I called your philosophy a "cancer" I imagime you'd be up in arms about my "intolerance"..


Means the same thing John.

Primal

Summary of criticism of relativism and intersubjectivism thus far:


1) The relativist does not prove his or her claim really but assumes relativism from the get-go.

2) The relativist is involved in a contradiction by proposing an absolute as they deny one: they propose all beliefs or viewpoints to be relative: suggesting a universal or absolute even as they deny the existence of one.

3) Relativism contradicts itself by losing its own ability to "priveledge" itself over rival objectivist or absolutist systems.

4) Relativists are not able to show how certain propositions: the existence of the self to self, axioms of logic and math, the existence of sensations, are refutable in any way yet claims that such views are open to doubt or relative. The only way for a relativist thus to show how such things are open to doubt is to presume as much from the get-go.

5) Relativism makes all beliefs incoherent as to say "I believe x" means "I think X is true" which means "x is more accurate then its alternatives." Hence x is more priveledged.

The concept of intersubjectivity:

1) It is unable to establish itself from a subjectivist system: why should I care what the majority thinks? How do I know another person even exists as I am limited to my subjectivity? Basically one is affirming that we are limited to our own subjectivity then denying this limitation.

2) It sinks down into an ideologcal majoritarianism.

3) It's capable of being self-refuting, i.e. if the majority denies the truthfulness of intersubjectivism then it has to be considered false.

4) Intersubjectivism cannot attain any epistemic value without supposing objectivism: a) If it claims to paint a "more accurate picture" it must venture forth what it is in fact painting a more accurate picture of. (if it states "subjectivity" then it begs the question of how subjectivity can be more accurate then itself as it only describes itself by its own standards). This merely seems to propose a more accurate picture of an external world and hence amounts to objectivism. b) Or else this is merely agreement for agreements sake.

5) We cannot in fact combine another's perceptions with our own. We can only accept another person's testimony. What happens when they conflict? Likewise how am I to evaluate this testimony? Do I merely see if I like it or it agrees with my own? In this case I am not so much adding another's perception to my own as much as their testimony: which I evaluate by my epistemic standards.


I would like to end this with a quote:

John Page

This in regard to how standards for coherence are set.
Well who else makes up these standards, god? They're made up by humankind, Primal.
This is all waffle, what's the "real thing"? Something coherent by currently accepted standards?
Are you absoluetly sure about that Stop trying to make your opinion into a god-given "absolute truth".
Taking the 5th is not a philosophically acceptable argument. You defined a terms "all beliefs", so what are they?
i.e. they're not absolute - Progress at last!
Just look again at what the Professor said about relativists - if he'd said it about blacks or jews he'd be out of a job.

Cheers, John

Primal

I would also like to stress that I am not an absolutist in the strict sense i.e. I do not believe all truth must be absolute. I believe in fact most of what we consider true, in fact the vast majority of what we consider true is provisional. I believe for example the statement "the sun will rise tomorrow." May turn out to be wrong.

However that does not mean I think, the statement "the sun will not rise tomorrow" is on equal ground in terms of likelyhood as the belief that the sun will.

I also do not dismiss the belief in any absolute. As I do believe some statements, mainly those of math,logic etc. Are absolute.

To me truth is more a matter of degree then a matter of infalibility or mere preference.