NialScorva

I'll definately buy that. It's also an argument for a form of objectivism. As I said in my first post, I think objectivism and mysticism are closely related philosophies.

NialScorva

I think it just replaces one symbology for another. You can grunt and point at a stick, and you can't know if they're referring to "brown", "wood", "an irregular cylinder with nobs", or "what I'm going to hit you with if you don't give me that food". If your intention is to indicate "brown"ness, then you can point to multiple things that are brown. You could even make a particular grunt with each to indicate a shortcut for pointing at everything "brown" with in sight. You could even represent it phonetically as "broun".

Oops, right back where we started.

AnthonyAdams45

Mysticism and relativism are incompatible, as the mystic always reaches out to the Absolute, to merge with it, to experience its intrinsic Reality. To merge with the relative.... wait a minute, isn't that incest. Forget I brought the whole idea up.

John Page

Agreed. I wonder if Kantian is up to redefining language?

Cheers, John

John Page

LOL! So, you knew you believed it, but you don't believe you know that it was valid? Like you indicated, we can put IMHO in front of everything. Now, you believe that having an epistemology excuses you from knowing how it is that you believe you know something.

At least an ontology would help explain why things exist for you, which of course they must do for you to believe in them. IMHO its "not what you know its how you come to know it".

Cheers, John

Kantian

Of course, it is to the Objectivist’s prerogative to judge so hastily from little, if any, evidence. I’m not surprised. Nevertheless, this doesn’t answer my question. Do you or do you not have real knowledge of a relativist behaving this way? Or was that your opinion?

False. A relativist is capable of subscribing to a theory of pragmatism and settle on what works is true or good enough for two relativists. The writings of William James attests to this potential scenario between two people who are not stuck with assumptions of realism or objectivity. Of course, you won’t take the chance at reading the works of other philosophers, as evidenced your recent posts in the political forum?

Which is why I wrote “the difference in vocabulary” as the real reason behind the failure to properly engage in a debate. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?


You missed my point completely. A keen attention to history demonstrates the rise of foundationalism from the philosophy of the Middle Ages, which was enslaved to theology, much like philosophy today, in lieu of science. Philosophers and theologians, in their attempt to render Christian faith ‘rational,’ tried to establish religious experience on a rational foundation, whether it was empirical or rational. With the writings of Descartes, philosophy awarded primacy to epistemology, and that entailed a theory of knowledge. Descartes strove to construct the theory of knowledge as a structure upon secure and certain foundations, and employ epistemic justifications. Foundationalists, in the vein of Descartes’ vision, whether they called themselves phenomenalists, empiricists, rationalists, or transcendentalists [sic] are committed to treat a groundwork as metaphysically and epistemologically unproblematic conceptual building block. A radical foundationalist requires foundational beliefs to be certain and capable of guaranteeing the certainty of non-foundational beliefs they support. Regrettably, this project is doomed to fail, because of two reasons: there are no beliefs that are indubitable, and any candidate for certainty is insufficient for guaranteeing the certainty of our rich and highly inferential knowledge of the external world (physics, biology, chemistry, etc.) thinkers today who are partial to foundationalism endorse a watered down version, a more modest one where ‘non-inferentially justified foundational beliefs’ need not provide certainty, nor do they deductively support non-foundational beliefs. Foundational beliefs are called “basic beliefs” because they are justified not by other beliefs, but by immediate experience. Ergo, a theist is a foundationalist inasmuch an objectivist/phenomenalist/empiricist/rationalist is, having based his entire knowledge system on a ‘properly basic’ belief they term to be “God.”


There is also a “truth in the human sense,” which is gained via relativism, as evidenced by Protagoras’ speech: I know of many things-meats, drinks, medicines, and ten thousand other things, which are inexpedient for man, and some which are expedient; and some which are neither expedient nor inexpedient for man, but only for horses; and some for oxen only, and some for dogs; and some for no animals, but only for trees; and some for the roots of trees and not for their branches, as for example, manure, which is a good thing when laid about the roots of a tree, but utterly destructive if thrown upon the shoots and young branches; or I may instance olive oil, which is mischievous to all plants, and generally most injurious to the hair of every animal with the exception of man, but beneficial to human hair and to the human body generally; and even in this application (so various and changeable is the nature of the benefit), that which is the greatest good to the outward parts of a man, is a very great evil to his inward parts: and for this reason physicians always forbid their patients the use of oil in their food, except in very small quantities, just enough to extinguish the disagreeable sensation of smell in meats and sauces. judgments about what is advantageous or beneficial are objective. Protagoras, the ultimate relativist, concedes that there is an objective relational fact that X is bad for Y, but good for Z.

People like you, Primal, Keith, are addicted to clichéd bon mots about relativism, and are content to see things at face value, and ignore the ramifications of depth grammar or metaphysics beyond the apparent linguistic facts. For example, the statement “all belief systems are relative” is not a belief system, it is a meta-belief system. Relativism is not a belief about the world, but a belief system about belief systems that refer to the world. The position of metaphysical relativism as an absolutist position is not a contradiction. If one were to take relativism as an absolutist position, then Kurt Gödel and self-referential paradoxes comes into the play.

Then what are they? Either you have private, telepathic access to a relativist, or you are molding a figure with straw and ridiculing your creation for your benefit.

You are avoiding the question. Instead of speculating about the psychological profile of a relativist, answer this: do you know anybody who is a relativist?


False. A relativist is as much an empiricist, a phenomenalist anyone can be, and is about as far as you can get on the philosophical scale from a theist, who is already convinced by the “absolute truth” of his beliefs. The theist will measure his subsequent beliefs or knowledge with his ‘properly basic’ belief in god inasmuch a Randroid will do the same with the ‘divine reason’ of Objectivism. The parallel is quite ironic, and almost sad.


~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Primal

Basically the whole enterprise of empricism was started because the idea of "innate ideas" as they were called was viewed as somewhat spirrious by philosophers like John Locke who proposed that the mind instead of attaining knowledge by innate ideas was more or less a "blank slate" or tabula rasa at birth, later to be written on or filled by the senses.

Now this connects to the issue of objectivism vs relativism because empiricism has come into the mix. Empircists keep in mind reject the concept of "innate ideas" or knowledge gained before sense experience and hence must assume that we are all born without any knowledge(because we have yet to have any observations/sensations) in other words: as blank slates.

Now if you believe relativism is based on empiricism but reject the empiricist notion of tabula rasa, admitting then certain pieces of knowledge are what we call "innate" then you are faced with a contradiction. BTW did you see my question concerning whether I could say with absolute certainty "I am having a sensation?" As I didn't see you answer.

Primal

That's assuming the religion is based on asbolutes while this may not necessarily be so. The New Age movement for example provides a good illustration of such an unholy alliance.

I've also seen creationists such as Phillip Johnson have argued for ID theory by suggesting that no one can really say "what is" or " is not" "real science" and thus that "theistic" science is just as legitimate as naturalistic science. Perhaps they may not be postmodernists but they are making good use of postmodernists methods and assumptions.

In many ways I believe that relativism more then objectivism lays a ground work for religion, as relativism provides a good opening for presupossitionalism.

Who is to say that there is no God with a God's eye-view under relativist premises? If theists reach an "intersubjective" agreement then isn't it so according to Hugo? If someone "wishes" for there to be a God...isn't there then a God? That to me provides more wiggle room for theists then I am willing to live with.

99Percent

Kantian: Why the provocative label "Big Chief Objectivist"?
Yet again, your response is self evident Which then any of the two relativist can claim "well, under those circumstances yes but the parameters have changed" (which they always change of course) leading them to a path of random oblivion and whim.Ad homOh you mean some gibberish about not being able to overcome the "death of God"? I thought I was doing you a favor by ignoring it.I won't even bother with a historical analysis of beliefs, I think that is entirely irrelevant with what is true as we currently understand what it is.I admit I am not even remotely familiar with this Protagoras, but what you quoted it seems like he is referring to moral values which indeed are relative to the living species at hand in his quote, but I already decided not to argue anything regarding morality here.You seem to underestimate us in our understanding of relativism, you are wrong, we are indeed a step ahead of you Its a lack of your understanding of our rational foundationalism that is hindering you and in fact negating you to be able to correspond with us and with truth and reality itself.You know this is very similar to asking if I know anybody who indeed believes in God. I just know that at the core the belief in the supernatural is absolutely irrational so anyone who claims to really believe in the irrational such as God would simply self destruct. (as indeed many do following a lifeless martyrlike existence). This is exactly what happens when you ask me about "true" relativist. They in fact cannot exist, because reality must somehow be understood on an absolutist and unchangeable point of reference, because of the nature of reality itself that relativism intrinsically denies.An empiricist is not a relativistYou are (and I daresay dishonestly) twisting the belief of an objectivist as similar to a theist in his aforemented "faith" with the objectivist "reason".

And I don't even dare venture what the hell "trancendentalism" means

AnthonyAdams45

Quoting yourself is about the most tasteless thing I can think of, but why waste time typing? As for "New Age" types, they have no conception of the divine as near as I can tell. I have far more respect for the average Bible thumping fundie who at least knows what they stand for, however silly it may be.

And did you not read your whole quote: Religion, by definition, marks people into two groups, the ins and the outs. Relatively going to hell makes no sense.

That's not relativism; that's appeal to ignorance, and an informal fallacy, as you very well know. Why do you persist in repeating misrepresentations of my position? Or Nialscorva? Or Hugo? If that's all you're capable of, fine, and I'll ignore it. But I do not think that's all you're capable of.

Relativism is not "make-it-up-as-you-go-along-ism." The work of a relativist, at least the kind of relativist I have always been, is never done. I have to stay alert, keep checking, keep thinking. I might actually find that absolute that is not restateable as a relation and have to switch over. Are there any conditions where you might switch sides on this?

Oh, and that silly "absolutely certain sensation" thing.... clear up the ambiguity. If you mean you are metaphysically certain that you having a perception, check in on the Descartes thread. The standard critiques have been made. If you mean you are psychologically certain, well, I'm absolutely certain that Oakland will win the Super Bowl, and I may be wrong. What sort of absolute is it that could be wrong?