Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

It's not quite as simple as that. By adopting the traditional absolutist judgement system (right/wrong, good/bad, true/false) you are doing far more than simply asserting that absolutes exist. According to this traditional system, anything that is judged wrong, bad, or false is automatically discarded. There is no acknowledgement of the possibility that while an idea might be wrong in one particular context, it might be right in some other context. Worse still, every time you come across two statements that are apparently contradictory, the traditional judgement system insists that one must be right and the other must be wrong. Now this approach works in some limited contexts, such are when you're solving mathematical problems, but it can be very weak indeed if you are trying to discover "truths" about the universe outside ourselves.

An absolutist philosophy insists on making absolute distinctions. But I know that such distinctions are not always appropriate.

I have dealt with this already. Relativism doesn't preclude judgement. All relativism requires is that you not make absolute distinctions, that the distinctions you do make are relative distinctions (for example, idea A is better than idea B), and that any "truths" you do happen to come up with are entirely relative to the philosophical model that you've calculated them from.

Why else do you think it's called "relativism"? It's an extension of Einstein's work with relativity where he finds that, for the purpose of his caculations, there are no absolute reference points in the universe, and that things only move in relation to each other. It has nothing at all to do with "an acceptance of, and a refusal to judge, all behaviors." -- except perhaps for a handful of unfortunate people who have entirely missed the point.

This is a philosophy forum, so we are dealing here with the serious philosophical content of relativism, not the fluff. Please try not to make a straw-man of it.

If it's "depending on the circumstances" then it's relative. Why do you keep trying to redefine relativism as something else? Ideas are relative to other ideas. Truths are relative to their context. That is the essence of relativism.

It does, in as much that you can't establish any moral code as an "absolute truth". If you were a true absolutist you would have to judge all moral codes equally false, because not a single one of them is based on any identifiable "absolutely true" axiom.

Also, morality can't apply to anything incapable of abstract thought. That's why it relates only to human beings. That's why it's relative rather than absolute.

You're not in possession of the absolute truth, or at least, you cannot -- because of the Egocentric Dilemma -- prove that any "truth" you subscribe to is absolute. Since the traditional absolutist system of judgement requires that you deal only in absolutes, you are, therefore, incapable of judging "relativistic" morality by that system.

The upshot of that is that people have always been better at making ethical judgements when they rely on common sense and their innate (perhaps biologically evolved) sense of justice. Whenever someone tries to rationalize ethical values, or build up some system of morality along some absolutist line, they always do a much poorer job of making ethical judgements.

Game theory provides just one example of this. Through rationalizing the prisoner's dilemma game, for years people thought that defecting was the only rational strategy. Then one day a researcher decided to test this, and discovered that the defecters got their asses soundly kicked by those playing the tit-for-tat strategy. Prior to that, they had always just assumed that the natural willingness of people to cooperate with each other was a naive human trait.

Well, um... actually, no you don't stop asking questions. Just because you are a relativist, doesn't mean that you automatically have to be content with the range of philosophical ideas that just happen to be available. In fact, being a relativist is the same as conceding that your knowledge of things falls somewhat short of perfect. So right there, built into the system, you have an automatic incentive to try and improve the philosophical system you have. Given that perfection is impossible, there is always room for improvement.

Contrast that with the absolutist. The moment that an absolutist deludes himself into thinking that he has discovered the one and the perfect absolute truth, he immediately stops searching, and he begins to build defensive walls around his precious "truth". You don't have to look very far to find historical examples of this. Look at how the notion of the "clockwork universe" derived from Newton led to complacency in the physical sciences, and probably retarded the development of the field until Einstein came along and overthrew it. Look at the reformation and the counter-reformation, the idiotic way that Rome opposed Galileo, and the idiotic way that the fundamentalists still oppose Darwin. Look at how Plato's absolutist notions caused him to dream up a fascist utopia, which has been the base model for fascist states ever since. You might arguably say that Absolutism is the most dangerous philosophy ever devised.

How can that be the case, where in the traditional absolutist system of judgement, you have to assume that your "truths" are absolute in order to get any result whatsoever? It is this false assumption that makes absolutism such a weak philosophical system in the first place.

Huh? How would it even be possible to say that something was 100% useful, when it's usefulness entirely depends on what you're using it for? You could design what you might believe to be a 100% useful spoon, but you still couldn't eat spaghetti with it. Does that make it incorrect? If you went back to the drawing board to change your design so it would be perfect for spaghetti, you would wind up reinventing the fork. And your fork would be 100% useful for eating spaghetti, but now you find that, unlike your original design for a spoon, it is useless for eating soup.

Usefulness depends entirely on the context. The very same object can be useful in one situation, and useless in another. That is relativism. Absolutism doesn't help you with these sorts of dilemmas at all.

Is it "wrong", then, for the artillerist to continue making his calculations according to Newton's laws?

This is only a dilemma for an absolutist. It poses no difficulty for the relativist.

Only an absolutist has to assume they're right. The relativist understands, right from the beginning, that this is just one particular model of reality.

How exactly does this "non-dogmatic absolutism" differ from relativism? As far as I can see, you're simply inventing new terminology so you can avoid admitting you're a relativist.

As far as I'm concerned, Newton's laws aren't "true" or "false" compared to Einstein's. Those true/false value judgements, to me, simply represent the absolutist making a meal over a matter that is really quite simple. You have two different scientific/philosophical models dealing with mechanics. Einstein's just happen to be useful for designing things like GPS navigational systems. Newton's just happen to be useful for figuring out where Mars is going to be next Tuesday, or where a shell is going to land if you fire it at a certain angle with a certain force. Where's the need to make a big deal over which model is right and which is wrong?

Haven't you been reading my posts? If you're using terms like "more" and "less" then you're making relative judgements.

If you can't know what the truth is, then how can you know whether an idea is close to it or not?

You cite an example from arithmetics. When you do arithmetics, you are working are working entirely within the syntax of the system of mathematics. So of course you are going to be able to find a syntactical truth within that system. But 90+90=180 is still only a relative truth -- it is relative to the standard arithmetical system. This truth is entirely dependent on its context, and if you change the context it's not true any more. Does 90+90 still equal 180 if you do it in Mod 100? Nope. In Mod 100, 90+90=80.

Truth is context sensitive. That's relativism.

But what's the point in making that value judgement about it? By saying it's wrong, you're implying that people shouldn't use it -- which is not exactly very helpful if the idea in question is the most useful one available for some particular purpose. If it works, it works. End of story. If it works now, it will still go on working just as well as it ever did, even if you decide that it's wrong.

Well, in their eyes, my atheism would be intellectually inferior. Those intervening centuries of intellectual development were necessary to the development of atheism as a viable position towards religion. I wouldn't for a moment entertain the possibility that I could persuade a medieval person to atheism in his natural environment, surrounded by a medieval culture reinforcing theistic belief.

The fact that relativists do not assume truth is in no way conducive to sitting around and twiddling your thumbs. In fact, ridding yourself of the burden of "absolute truth" means that you are free to adopt a pragmatic approach. You can get on with things without having to worry whether what you are doing is true or not.

Why can't I, as a relativist, believe in progress? I can see that there are now more philosophical models around than there used to be. That's progress of a sort. I can see that scientists are increasingly refining their models, and that the predictions they can make from these models are more accurate than ever before.

That's progress. And it's got nothing to do with relativism verses absolutism. This is just as well for your argument, because the scientific method is the very embodiment of relativism.

Yes it is a relative judgement.

Does this debate really have to descend into cheap pantomime?

"Oh no it isn't."

"Oh yes it is! It is, it is, it is, times a trillion-billion-million, and no returns."

All value judgements are relative because it depends on whose point of view we're judging from. A different person looking at the situation from a different point of view might identify different values in the situation. So there is no "absolute value" that applies to everyone and every situation. Value is relative.

Not from our point of view though. It's a relative value.

In practice it is not possible to "assume" an absolute value. The very fact that you are only "assuming" a value means that it's perfectly possible for somebody else to come along and "assume" a different value. And it's not like you can disqualify him for saying something different from you, because the basis for your own choice is every bit as arbitrary as his. So an "assumed" value is not an "absolute" value.

Maybe it would be rational and maybe it wouldn't, but it would certainly be sensible. It's not sensible to say that something might exist just because you can't prove it doesn't. I mean, where would you stop? God? The tooth fairy? The invisible pink unicorn? Invisible sock-eating goblins that live in washing machines?

Is it right for a rock to "murder" another rock? Value judgements are relative. You can see that they are relative by the way they don't make sense when you try to apply them to other contexts.

mhc

Thanks for the replies!

Now,

What is it to "be a relativist" ?

I mean logically-as pertains to truth claims.

*also*-

Does a relativist necessarily reject a priori truths?

Sorry! just noticed Kim's long post (now how could I have missed that?) I will read it!

John Page

To live out one's contradictions.
Reject? No, they're just assumptions.

Cheers, John

mhc

If it is that relativism "means" that all truth is relative to --gains it value by way of-- its relationship to other truths within a system, then I think that can hardly be denied.
When i think of fundamental axioms like the law of identity I see that they are tautologies, and not some mysterious a priori truth. Ultimately everything refers back to its own part of the system. Nothing can break through the system entirely. There are ultimate limits on what we can know.
How would you relate this with Kant's noumena?

nermal

I certainly think the breed of relativism Kim is speaking of is not that which we defined at the outset. It seems to me more of an "ecclecticism" borrowing hither and thither from philosophical systems which best fit. It's still grounded in "something" though I'm at odds to specify what. If that's her system, I certainly won't argue against it. I couldn't show it to be other than self contained as I have with relativism as defined .

John, your point re: the contradictions of the axioms of logic. I'll admit this is a bit beyond me at this stage. I don't believe they are contradictory, but I'll dig further. I will admit they are assumed and henceforth unprovable, but that isn't the same thing. You've inspired me to look deeper. Thanks.

Ed

long winded fool

Sorry Kim, I didn't see your post outlining your definition of relativism. I guess maybe I am a relativist by your definition. If accepting the possibility of errors in our perception of truth and the many different applications of a particular system necessarily makes you a relativist, then I think most of us are, but I don't think this describes true relativism. I don't deny that everything is relative to every other thing. I deny that nothing ought to carry any inherent value in the human mind. I deny that, if values do exist, all values must be assumed equal. I deny that there can't be a "right" or a "wrong." This is true relativism.

Kim, I believe the philosophy you're arguing against is dogmatism. (If dogmatism can even be considered philosophy...) While all dogmatists are absolutists, not all absolutists are dogmatists. You mention that arithmetic is true relative to the system of mathematics. The system that truth is subject to is logic and reason. Things are true relative to, and only to, logic. Nothing is true outside of logic, as truth can't exist outside of logic. (Any being incapable of logical application is incapable of labeling a thing true or false.) Therefore, since truth only exists within the confines of logic, truth is not relative to any system other than logic and is therefore absolute. Nothing illogical is true. Nothing logical is false, (assuming valid and unsound syllogisms are not logical.) Errors in our perception of logic undermine the truth of a proposition whether it is discovered or not. We may fail to properly label the proposition as false, but it is still an untrue proposition. This does not necessitate relativism; it merely demands open-mindedness and caution against egocentric dogmatism. You can be wrong about an absolute truth without contradicting the reality of absolute truth.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Well, we at least understand each other a little better now, which is progress. To be honest, I feel deciding what label to attach to it is probably the least important part of the process, so I won't address your argument about what you suppose to be "real relativism" at any great length.

I think part of the problem here is that most people only know about relativism as it is defined by its critics. That's how you've come by the cartoon image of the relativist as a sort of new-age arts graduate type, standing by excusing other people's bad behavior by saying, "That's cool man -- whatever works for you." Isn't it a bit disingenuous to be pointing to a completely risable straw-man -- created for the soul purpose of discrediting relativism -- and saying that this is what a real relativist should be?

I don't think any thoughtful person would sit down to create a concept that was deliberately disfunctional (except perhaps as some sort of joke or hoax). A philosopher who advocates relativism is hardly going to accept a definition of relativism that is completely retarded, is he? So why not allow relativism to be defined by the people who take it seriously as a philosophical concept -- rather than by some doofus who wants to build a straw-man to point and laugh at, and make a complete idiot of himself.

nermal

I don't think you are calling me a doofus specifically, so I'll continue in good faith. We agreed early in this thread about what the definition of relativism is, and that is expressly what I've been arguing against, but clearly not what you've been defending. I've propped up no straw-man.

Ed

John Page

True!
There may be other forms of mind than what we currently conceive, suggesting the need for caution. That apart, noumena result from the mind's structuring of sense data. The ability of your mind and my mind to comprehend the concept in the same way allows noumena to be shared intersubjectively - IMO a better hypothesis than some Cartesian theater.

Cheers, John

long winded fool

You have a point, however considering your equation of absolutism with dogmatism I think we ought both work on our tendency towards straw men. It appears we agree then, if you as a relativist do place definitive value judgments but admit that they are merely your own interpretation and not necessarily absolutely true, as I do. Neither of us is in the extreme of which the other is referring to. I won't argue that you can't call yourself a relativist if you want to, and I won't argue that your system is faulty as long as you admit that you are absolutely intolerant of some behaviors and tolerant of others. I, on the other hand, admit that no one is in possession of absolute truth and that our attempt to encapsulate such a thing into a philosophical system has always been, and for all intents and purposes will always be, subject to challenge and critical analysis.