Zulu

Or is the very attempt of doing so contradictory? From a purely intellectual point of view-- is there a coherent argument for relativism?

Thanks,

-Zulu

Edit: fixed typo

John Page

Nice topic - I'd be interested to see a logical defense of any other -ism.

Until that happens, relativism seems the logical default position since it can be defended whatever grounds the opponent chooses.

Cheers, John

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I agree with John Page (which I admit, is becoming a habit with me).

Relativism is the default position one must fall back to, because its opposite -- absolutism -- is untenable.

There is no one idea that you could call an "absolute truth" -- that you can prove to be absolutely true with 100% certainty. And the "egocentric dilemma" is the reason why.

The egocentric dilemma goes like this. All knowledge must be held in the mind. If you don't have the knowledge of something in your mind, then you don't know it, and if you don't know it then how can you know that the knowledge exists? Knowledge is inextricably linked to the mind. But if knowledge is inextricably linked to the mind, then it can't be absolutely objective. We have no way of knowing whether something is true in any absolute way, because we cannot rule out the possibility that an apparent "truth" is just an artefact of the peculiar way the mind works.

To achieve pure objectivity, we would have to step outside of our own minds to test whether a particular truth is still true independently of the way we think. But, of course, stepping outside of ones own mind is impossible. We are forced then, to filter all our knowledge through our human point of view -- which we already suspect is very limited.

That is the egocentric dilemma. We are forced to be relativists, because right from the outset, we are trapped within our human point of view. We cannot achieve a universal point of view; we cannot be sure that a universal (God's eye) point of view is even possible. I have certainly seen no evidence that support the existence of a God's eye point of view (and, therefore, a God).

Amos

So then to be omniscient we only have to know our own mind and this would be equal to the mind of God.

Frotiw

Relativism is fairly easily refuted I dare say. It is practically concidered a -no go- by all philosphers. Grab a book of history of philosphy and tell me when you find the first relativst. Ofcause there are some but it is an impossible stance to uphold and they are extremly few.

I wanted to defend absolutism by using formal monadic predicate logic but I no shark at m.p logic and the forums lack of logic symbols make it impossible. I try in words though.

Absolutism = there is at least one that is true(existential quantifier)

Relativism = for all x, x is relative*(universal quantifier) we may express this as the judgment (x)(Rx).-(lacking a universal quanitifier symbol).

*contingent(not true in all cases and logical in opposition with universal q.)

Now the problem is obviosly that the judgement contradict itself as it claims universallity(ALL judgements are relative, everything is relative e.g.) as the same time as is it claims that NOT ALL judgements are universal(being relative).
Relatism is a logical contradiction. It might seem plausible before giving it thorough consideration then it turns out impossible.

Cheers

King's Indian

Here is a look at some of the problems, that's also a good read.
KI

jpbrooks

I agree with Kim's argument, and it poses a dilemma for me. Since we shouldn't, according to Relativism, be able to have any absolute knowledge of anything, how can we explain where the knowledge that we do have comes from? That is, if we can't know anything with absolute certainty, how could we know enough about the existence/nature and limits of knowledge to know that there is a reality of which we cannot have absolute knowledge? It won't do to say that everything that we claim to know is just a conjecture because we would then need to be able to account for how, beginning with no absolute knowledge at all, we could come to have knowledge of the difference between conjectural beliefs about reality and genuine knowledge about it. Thus, my view needs to be able to account for how we do have absolute knowledge of some things when, as Relativism points out, we should have no absolute knowledge at all.

jpbrooks

Thanks for the link, kI. The articles index page of that site has a number of very interesting articles.

John Page

But if the set of all sets is a member of itself, a contradiction arises (Russell's Antinomy). Truth cannot be universally quantified using logic in the way you suggest.

Cheers, John

Zulu

Hi guys,

Kim, that's a very interesting approach... I hadn't considered that before. Certainly rings true to me.


Frotiw, I agree that relativism doesn't seem all too popular amongst most philosophers. The main problem it seems to me is in defining relativism. As soon as we define it: is it still relativism? Isn't there a contradiction in making the definition?

-Zulu