Keith Russell

Greetings:

It seems to me that the relativists should simply be saying (to objectivists or anyone else) 'hey, if that's your view, it's cool'.

But, they aren't.

Keith.

John Page

Cool?

Well, if that's your view of relativism, its cool for you.

Cheers, John

August Spies

Russell:

Relevatavism means that you view things as relative to eachother and don't subscribe to some objectivist view that one stance is the true stance. However, it should be clear by now that this does NOT mean that all viewpoints are EQUALLY valid or EQUALLY true. It does not mean that some stances can not be better than others.

This should be clear from the name. To use a crude analogy, the theory of relativity says that time is relative to your speed... this does not mean that all velocities are "equally as fast" or such nonsense.

John Page

August:

I went round the loop with Primal on this one several times where he basically asks how you know one stance is better than the others and your view must be priviledged in order to know this etc.

I prefer to say that the stances represent the different views (1,2)under discussion and can be evaluated from an additional point of view (3). While this employs the principles of objective analysis, in fact, the findings from any viewpoint will depend upon the subjective evaluation criteria inherent in that viewpoint. In other words, "better" is relative and one can argue this by considering a theoretical universe of viewpoints.

Primal thought my reasoning was circular, whereas I consider it more "reflective" reconciling how different viewpoints can occur rather than trying to argue right/wrong (the latter frocing one into a subjective mode of thinking).

I'm probably posting this to get the description clear in my own mind. Comments welcome.

Cheers, John

AnthonyAdams45

I first encountered this insight in the writings of Mary Midgely and have been pushing it ever since. All my judgments are made relative to my standards, whether privileged or not, because they are the only standards I have. Trying to judge a value, moral, aesthetic, alethic, or economic, from someone else's viewpoint is pointless, if not impossible. As no one around here seems to believe other than that, I begin to suspect that none of them are really absolutists, but rather are all weak-kneed relativists, believing that taking the plunge into the hard work of the active, critical relativist is too much for them, or that in embracing relativism, they will lose the grounds, if not ability, to pass scathing, superior judgment on the feeble-minded others around them.

Primal

Again another none answer. Either, or both.




Obviously reasoning that stands as evident yet cannot be disproven even in theory for one. Also what about experience shows there are no absolutes? What paticular experience proved that exactly?




So then it's true/accurate/priveledged?

Ah, so then you see it as priveledged over absolutism.(Contradiction.)




*sigh* Kinda hard to read it before you post it.....


Nope.




I agree there is something called dialtheism, a school of thought. But I do not accept it as logic as it seems very different then the line of thought reffered to as logic. Likewise not even the article you presented on the subject claimned dialetheism was a system of logic.




Are you saying others do not reason?

Straw man/false dillema.

The choice is not "X has a perfect mind or X's knowledge is relative." Like I've said before there's more out there then either pure relativism or pure absolutism. My mind may be imperfect but capable of grasping objective,perhaps even universal truths nonetheless.



Nope actually evolutionary theory suggests our mental mechanisms are inherited not made up. Does a computer create its own hardware? Nope, likewise we do not make our own standards of thought: we just recognize them. Also science and such have developed, sometimes in very different directions then people at the times would have preffered.



By propositional do you mean every claim is either true or false logic? Or true/false in an absolute sense? If so, then I admit it has flaws, which is why I do not use propositional logic.


Because by you are still saying its true, i.e. more accurate then other views even with the given context, even if it may change. Most likely based on certain standards which elevate it above other views. That is in essence "priveledging" the belief even though it is a provisional priveledging. Such priveledging, even though it is provisional thus creates contradictions in the relativist system though making relativism incoherent/self-defeating.

Primal

Nothing like a totally unsubstantiated personal attack there AA. Perhaps it is you that prefers relativism to objectivism because the former allows for a very conveniant way to believe whatever you want..... as well as allowing you to attack a person's character instead of their actual arguments as if that counts as evidence.

Primal

I would like you to look up the term cognitive relativism. Which does say there is no "true or false" and all beliefs are more or less "equal". Equal in the sense that none is more "true" then another.

I'd say the above stance you give is a sort of weak, or agnostic objectivism. In which all claims are provisional and not equal. I reject such an objectivism for reasons best explained on another thread btw, but what you are claiming about relativism, especially cognitive relativism(moral relativism being irrelevant) is not relativism at all. Please learn the basics of your own belief.

AnthonyAdams45

So August doesn't know what he believes? Has to learn it from elsewhere? Needs to bring his definition in line with your expectations? If I thought you cared, I'd list a group of works on relativism, none of which accept "your" definition of cognitive relativism, or even moral relativism.

Relativists on this thread, from Hugo to John Page, through me, to Capn Kirk and now August have always proposed a definition of relativism that acknowledges the importance of the ability to choose between alternatives. Choosing implies a difference between alternatives, therefore, the alternatives are not equal.

The question remains, how can someone be only relatively an absolutist? How do you know when a property is absolute or relative? Is that knowledge absolute or relative? Why multiply classes of properties beyond necessity?

John Page

You asked how I would confim or disconfirm a hypothesis and I responded by asking "Absolutely or contingently?" I was being ironic, I believe one can only confirm or disconfirm a hypothesis in relation to the standards that are applied to that confirmation/disconfirmation.
I know of no such reasoning and, furthermore, believe the reasoning you use above to promote the primacy of objectivist (or Primocratic) is faulty (with respect to relativism). Again, I am not holding relativism out to be "absolutely true" as you seem to be doing for objectivist propoganda.
Twisting my words again - I said I had no experience of any absolute truths. Primocratism is claiming there are absolute truths and you have yet to back up this claim, I don't have to disprove it.
Different.
DIFFERENT!
This was your response to my post "Read what I wrote". You seem to be unaware of the past tense.
With this acknowledgement that we learn by experience, is it not reasonable to say that we learn to reason and, as a consequence of our learning to reason, that our past reasoning is subject to trial and error. This somewhat pokes a hole in the objectivist claim for the "primacy of reason".
I thought the article clearly showed the implications of dialetheitic thought for a system of logic that would be complementary to it.
No, merely that we seem to reason differently, thereby supporting the relativistic point of view.
But not relativism, it seems.
Oh. What system of logic do you use?
No I'm not saying any viewpoint is "true". Interesting though, that you go on to say "i.e. more accurate than......." and then "most likely based on certain standards...."

Please consider that the "standards" you refer to are necessarily inherent in the viewpoint under consideration. Thus, the observer having said viewpoint forms their opinion based on these viewpoint-dependent (non-universal) standards. Objectivism does not afford the thinker a model or paradigm that encompasses Relativism - this is apparent from your attempt above at proving Relatvism incoherent/self defeating.

A truth is relative to the mind that thinks it and an objective thought can never be completely objective because the thinker cannot simultaneously adopt all viewpoints at once (however much they think they do).

Regards, John