John Page

this post is false

capnkirk

When you guys finally decide how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...issue a press release.
As philosophers are often wont, you prattle on long after you have run out of anything to say.

John Page

I think this is self-refuting. If pragmatically derived values are those placed by society on those pragmatic ideas, then relativism has everything to say about its valuation.

Cheers, John

capnkirk

John,

Allow me to use an absurd example to demonstrate the difference between valuation and value as it applies to relativism.

There comes a time when a majority of the world's population decide that all living males must be sterilized, and all male children must be slain at birth.

In this example, society has placed a valuation on the male sex, and this valuation was duly arrived at (with respect to relativism). Is that valuation therefore reflective of the pragmatic value of the male sex? In this absurd example, pure relativism would endorse the willful end of the species, provided only that a majority of the world's population agreed. This example aptly demonstrates that while relativism may not be "wrong", it cannot stand alone as a compass (being more like a windsock). It needs something else to make it complete. It requires some reference to provide a reality check. That something is a sense of intrinsic value.

The all too real phenomena of masses of people being deluded into similar relativist absurd conclusions and actions relegates relativism to the status of a tool to understand that the valuation of any "thing" tangible or intangible is the value that people place on it. Relativism does NOTHING to address the ultimate quality (or wisdom) of that valuation. Valuation does not equal Value.

A more mundane corollary is the pricing of commodities in a free market (let's use NYSE for example). Any stock's price at a given moment is a perfect reflection of the buyers' and sellers' collective valuation of that stock. But in a particular case (say ENRON) the corporate execs are secretly deluding investors. In which case, the intrinsic value of the stock is not reflected by its market valuation. That these two valuations will eventually intersect is due entirely to factors EXTERNAL to the foundational premise of relativism (i.e. It is due to awareness of the true intrinsic value of the stock.). In fact, one could powerfully argue that without benefit of the awareness of the true intrinsic value of a "thing", relativism invariably founders.

Relativism works perfectly in a perfect world, but that's not where we live. The decision by the cult group to commit suicide so as to board a flying saucer did not violate any tenet of relativism; they unanimously decided that their conclusion was valid. Jim Jones' Kool-aid party was similarly the result of a relativistically sound process. The list of examples of groups reaching relativistically sound, but patently absurd conclusions is seemingly endless. Ergo: Relativism needs a shepherd. That shepherd is the recognition of intrinsic value.

Keith Russell

John said:
Keith, because its Kantians view of your view! i.e. To you, your view is still subjectively true. To him, his view that your view is false (to him) is still subjectively true (to him).

Of course, this is just my view....

Cheers, John

John, I don't worry about the arbitrary--it is, after all, arbitrary.

If Kantian wants me to even consider his view, he needs to provide some evidence that doing so would benefit me. (In other words, he needs to be objective (rational), rather than what he has been thus far: arbitrary (irrational).

Keith.

John Page

Huh? Relativism doesn't "endorse" actions, merely helps to explain them.
No need for a proviso.
And this sense of intrinsic value comes from where?
Agreed, it results in a value.
...and without an intrinsic value which stands independent of all else, so does non-relativism.
How do you know this?
...but your smilie was Darth Vader - is he the Shepherd of Intrinsic Value? Anyway, he's from Star Wars although that film is related to Star Trek.

Off to the transporta-potty Captain.

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

Capn:

Relativism doesn't 'work', period.

A perfect world?

There's only one reality, one existence.

This universe is perfectly what it is, but somehow I doubt you would call it 'perfect'.

Therefore, there is no perfect world; only this one.

And relativism doesn't work here.

Keith.

capnkirk

Kieth,

Go back and read my post more slowly...and thoroughly. We are in complete agreement. Relavitism DOESN'T work when people try to use it for a compass. It is useful only as a windsock to see which way the wind is blowing. For relativism to work as a compass requires a perfect world, and that does not exist. Relativism is just a process by which a valuation is agreed on. If the data available is flawed, so will the valuation be flawed.

The only thing that you didn't respond to was my observation that to avoid valuations that are fatally flawed, relativism must depend on the quality of the data gatherers' perception of intrinsic value...and I think that you would agree on that as well.

capnkirk

John Page:

IMHO, relativism's liability is that too many people regard it as a compass, rather than a windsock. The collective intent of all my posts to that thread, including the examples, reflect the pitfalls inherent in that type of misapplication.

OBTW, Darth Vader in the smilie is intended to represent relativism (when used as a compass). Read slower...learn more!

See also my preceding post to Keith.

P.S. I acquired this moniker as an Army captain in Vietnam who just happened to be named Kirk. Personally I always identified more with Mr. Spock anyway.

Hugo Holbling

Thanks, Gurdur. I'm glad someone noticed.

Yes, and that's why i keep trying to get people to address antifoundationalism in a coherent fashion. Given that the thread has degenerated and no-one cares to take on Habermas as i asked, it seems there's nothing left to say.

:banghead: