Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Hugo Holbling · 01-25-2003, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Ash
I think morality at the least requires that in any given specific situation, there is one choice which you can meaningfully say has more value than the others without reference to any perspectives on which is the right action.

Ah, i see what you mean now. I'm happy to concede this point; in return, i hope you appreciate what i said earlier, viz.:

Quote:

...i don't want to argue morality here; the issue in my first post was to try to show that demarcation criteria (for instance, between "good" and "bad") may be arrived at on the basis of intersubjective agreement for relativists.

I brought this up to answer some supposed difficulties that were seen as a criticism of relativism, and also to head off the complaint that you now move on to:

Quote:

Originally and boldly claimed by Thomas Ash
Otherwise, there's no real way to argue with someone who declares themselves an amoralist and sets about doing the sort of shocking deeds that would occur in a relativist world.

This is the good ol' "to hell in a hand-cart" non sequitur argument against relativism and antifoundationalism generally.

I think a consideration of the evolution of legal systems would be enough to shoot this idea down, but i leave it to you to prove your positive assertion (here's your discussion of morality, albeit on slightly relativist terms...

).

Quote:

Well, I was partly trying to show that you can't meaningfully talk about human rights, beauty in a relativist world

Show me again!

I'm also waiting on your demonstration that relativism is self-refuting. Btw, what did you make of those Habermas and Fish quotes i posted? No need to debate them here; a mere "not very convincing, alas" will suffice.

Quote:

This seemed like as good an approach as any to convince 'you relativists'

Convince us of what? Am i a danger to society?!

Keith Russell · 01-25-2003, 07:10 AM

Hugo:

You are no danger to a proper society, but you are certainly in danger without a society--whose values, beliefs, and/or ideas you can emulate.

Relativism, a form of intrinsicism, simply takes as 'the given', whatever culture, ideas, and beliefs currently exist (or, at least, of which the relativist is aware).

Relativism cannot determine how to improve upon an existing belief system, nor can it determine how a given system came into being.

Relativists see themselves only within the context of their society, and they only way they can see to improve upon that, is to borrow other existing ideas from other societies.

A relativist surrounded only by evil societies, with no knowleddge of any other kind, would indeed be at a disadvantage.

Human beings are not so limited; unless they choose to be.

Keith.

Hugo Holbling · 01-25-2003, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
Relativism, a form of intrinsicism, simply takes as 'the given', whatever culture, ideas, and beliefs currently exist (or, at least, of which the relativist is aware).

Another argument for solipsism... :banghead:

Gurdur · 01-25-2003, 08:19 AM

Keith Russell, with pardons to you, I'm going to modify your cited words to make them into a numbered list; I will then reply to each one by number. While your reply was addressed to Hugo Holbling, I will ask HH's pardon and give my own answer.

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith Russell
.....

You are no danger to a proper society, but you are certainly in danger without a society--whose values, beliefs, and/or ideas you can emulate.
Relativism, a form of intrinsicism, simply takes as 'the given', whatever culture, ideas, and beliefs currently exist (or, at least, of which the relativist is aware).
Relativism cannot determine how to improve upon an existing belief system, nor can it determine how a given system came into being.
Relativists see themselves only within the context of their society, and they only way they can see to improve upon that, is to borrow other existing ideas from other societies.
A relativist surrounded only by evil societies, with no knowleddge of any other kind, would indeed be at a disadvantage.

.....

My own answer:

Your claim that a relativist is dependent upon surrounding beliefs is completely incorrect.
See answers to other points below.
Nonsense.
Relativism is simply the recognition that there has never been an external, 'objective' legitimization of any morality, and moreover many other types of belief systems are also recognised as being without ultimate legitimization.
Nonsense.
Relativists are quite able to develop their own ideas, and often do.
Moreover, they are completely free (as is everyone) to arbitrarily adopt belief systems as they will --- together with the recognition there is no ultimate legitimization.
Oh puh-leeze.
Mahatma Ghandi was for all intents and purposes a relativist; Spinoza was; Boethius was; Marcellus came damned close.
Relativists can be just as hard-boiled as anyone else; they simply recognise there is no ultimate legitimization.

I look forward to your reply.

Hugo Holbling · 01-25-2003, 08:44 AM

I guess i'll add that i don't appreciate the condescending lesson i received above. I started this thread to talk about relativism, making it clear that i'd play the part in the interest of discussion. Concern for my well-being is off-topic, utterly irrelevant and bordering on the offensive.

Gurdur: My official pardon is granted! :notworthy

Primal · 01-25-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Let's pick this apart:
1) The notion impossible is one that resides in your mind.

Yes however who's to say absolutes can't reside within one's own mind? I think Hegel or Berkley would see a problem with thisobjection as both were Idealists who believed in absolutes.

Quote:

2) You can intersubjectively share this notion (hopefully, with some degree of accuracy) with others.
3) No absolute definition is implied (unless, of course, one is an absolutist), the definition is local to the minds that share it.
4) It doesn;t matter whether an absolutist or a relativist makes a declaration that something is impossible, this is a proposition contained within their minds and thus subjective.
5) Even if an idea was held to be "impossible" by all men, it would remain an "intersubjective impossibility".

So then either 1) The proposition really is impossible for the minds, whether they accept this or not.

or 2) The proposition is not really impossible at all, only provisionally so, given that the minds agree. If the minds change their opinion on the matter, the event ceases to be "impossible", making it not really impossible in the first place. It makes little sense to say "impossible sometimes."

Quote:

But that's hardly absolute, is it? Whatever was the subject would be impossible relative to the self.

Why not? And how would the subject of one's own existence be impossible to one's own self? You've still ceased to show me how one can be wrong about one's own existence and if you can not, then you fail to show how the matter is even possibly relative.

Quote:

Perhaps you would care to answer the question I posed to you in my previous post. "Anything else you know that is absolutely true?"

Well some are: Basic rules of logic, basic rules of math, the fact of change, the fact that I am having sensations, the fact that I have thoughts/concepts, the fact that I can infer, to name a few. All for which there seems no possible way to disprove them other then to straight up declare them "subjective" at the outset however meanignless the statement is.

Primal · 01-25-2003, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Accepting an idea doesn't necessarily make it true, its just an idea that you hold relative to the world around you!

While it may not make it true, it means you think it true. For it seems pretty contradictory to say "I believe X, but it isn't true."

That's like me saying "John made a post, but I don't believe it."

Gurdur · 01-25-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal

While it may not make it true, it means you think it true. For it seems pretty contradictory to say "I believe X, but it isn't true."

That's like me saying "John made a post, but I don't believe it."

Yes, and you can take too much LSD and think demons are chasing you, so you need to escape via flying out of a 10-th floor window.

Odd little objective things like gravity have such a disturbing way of interfering with subjective solipsist ideas that everything you believe is true is therefore true, eh ?

Primal · 01-25-2003, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Yes, and you can take too much LSD and think demons are chasing you, so you need to escape via flying out of a 10-th floor window.

Yes but if you know you are having a hallucination, then you don't really believe demons are chasing you. However if you do believe that demons are after you while having the hallucination then you still think that the statement "demons are after me.", is true whether the demons exist or not. Remember my claim isn't about whether or not it is true but whether you think its true.

Quote:

Odd little objective things like gravity have such a disturbing way of interfering with subjective solipsist ideas that everything you believe is true is therefore true, eh ?

Yes I agree totally.

However my point wasn't to show that it is impossible for a relativist or anyone to believe in something that isn't true, but to show it is contradictory for them to maintain a belief that they themselves declare untrue.

Gurdur · 01-25-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Primal

Yes but if you know you are having a hallucination, then you don't really believe demons are chasing you. However if you do believe that demons are after you while having the hallucination then you still think that the statement "demons are after me.", is true whether the demons exist or not. Remember my claim isn't about whether or not it is true but whether you think its true.

Irrelevant.

Quote:

Yes I agree totally.

However my point wasn't to show that it is impossible for a relativist or anyone to believe in something that isn't true, but to show it is contradictory for them to maintain a belief that they themselves declare untrue.

Completely incorrect.
I myself maintain an optimistic attitude, despite knowing it is not realistic. Why ? Makes my day a better one.

01-25-2003, 08:44 AM	#145
Hugo Holbling Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Self-banned in 2005 Posts: 1,344	Let's get back to knee-jerk foundationalism.. I guess i'll add that i don't appreciate the condescending lesson i received above. I started this thread to talk about relativism, making it clear that i'd play the part in the interest of discussion. Concern for my well-being is off-topic, utterly irrelevant and bordering on the offensive. Gurdur: My official pardon is granted! :notworthy

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-25-2003, 07:10 AM	#142
Keith Russell Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Overland Park, Kansas Posts: 1,336	Hugo: You are no danger to a proper society, but you are certainly in danger without a society--whose values, beliefs, and/or ideas you can emulate. Relativism, a form of intrinsicism, simply takes as 'the given', whatever culture, ideas, and beliefs currently exist (or, at least, of which the relativist is aware). Relativism cannot determine how to improve upon an existing belief system, nor can it determine how a given system came into being. Relativists see themselves only within the context of their society, and they only way they can see to improve upon that, is to borrow other existing ideas from other societies. A relativist surrounded only by evil societies, with no knowleddge of any other kind, would indeed be at a disadvantage. Human beings are not so limited; unless they choose to be. Keith.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.