Primal

No John. I'm just saying you priveledge viewpoint when you believe them or think them true.

So it is abritrarily asserted? Taken on faith? Or believed in....yet considered untrue?




Ah but presuming them subjective is exactly that: a priori presumption. I can likewise presume them objective and absolute. For example I could believe I see objective reality perfectly, all the time. When I dream objectively reality literally changes. People that say otherwise are liars. etc. You could not disprove this notion with empirical evidence, only dismiss it through a priori reasoning. Theories underly all perceptions.



Okay then, so what are you saying? Does your reasoning go on forever or end with something noninferred? Are you saying there are ends? Or are you being agnostic on the issue?

If agnostic you have to admit that both foundationalism and infinitism can work.



But likewise context is determined in part by our conceptions. Perceptions never stand alone. And relativists cannot priveledge the empirical over the nonempirical, nor priveledge the tabula rasa viewpoint over the belief in innate ideas.

Primal

Anthony I could not do this because any definition I show you is by definition not going to be neutral if it goes against what you are saying. I could only say the definition is from a reliable source and tends to describe the viewpoints of relativists well.

First of non seq. Even if my definition is wrong that doesn't mean John's is right.

Second your basically trying to overturn a definition based on what? A single guy that says he does not agree with what a relativist was described as. You do not overturn definition(which are based on the general) on the basis of an exception.

Lastly, this definition is the one we've been going by for some time. Why should we change all of a sudden?

Basically my problem with your definition is that it makes anyone who believes anything is relative....a relativist. That's like saying for example if I believed some knowledge relative and some absolute.....I'm automatically a cognitive relativist. Sorry but that's just loading the dice a bit too much. You are at this point more or less defining your way to victory by making your belief sooo vague and imprecise as to be closed to all criticism.

John Page

I understand what you're saying, but at least by acknowledging that one has an "inherent" viewpoint I can minimize bias from that viewpoint. Maybe we could call this de-priviledgization! I (subjectively( ) consider this to have fewer flaws than a viewpoint that one knows absolute truth.
This in response to my statement that relativism is not proven. Let me add, then, that relativism is not "arbitrarily asserted" but a reflection of human observations and understanding of the reality we perceive.

I'm not asking anyone to take relativism on faith! Please consider that as atheism is the position that there is no god, so is relativism the concept that all positions are relative and there are no absolutes. Relativism does not need to plead superiority or special a priori assumptions to justify itself.
I thought we had got past the issue that complete objectivity (i.e. god-like observations) seems unattainable due to our limited presence in spacetime. The only evidence you need is the experience that our views vary, if you have experienced this how do you deny that viewpoints differ and are therefore relative? No a priori is needed, just an intersubjective reality.
This was in response to my comment "I take the view that instances of human thought are limited by the physiology of the mind/brain. Just because you can't see the ends, doesn't mean it goes on forever."

As to infinitism, show me an infinity, and infinite quantity of something. This only exists as a concept. Foundationalism - this needs absolutes which we have debated before. Thus, there are contradictions and issues with these approaches that dissolve under relativism.
I understand, but what do you think of the "de-priviledgization"? I call this Reconciliationism as my attempt to move beyond objectivism's pragmatic a prioris. Here are a couple of excerpts:

"It is impossible for me, or anyone else, to be truly objective about anything because we don't know or understand how and why we think and behave in a particular way."

"My purpose here is not to argue for one set of theories against another, merely to offer explanations and a method through which to better understand our lives and help us continue our voyage of discovery. There is no book of questions with the answers in the back in case we should make mistakes and stumble. We must learn how to shape ourselves both individually and as societies, creating future history the way we want it, controlling time and the uncertain realities it brings. I offer Reconciliationism as my contribution to freedom of thought leading to freedom of existence."

Maybe I should start a new thread.

Cheers, John

John Page

LOL. But you can overturn it, which is consistent with relativistic tenets.....

Cheers, John

Primal

I aknowledge that I have an inherent viewpoint as well...but that doesn't necessarily lead me to relativism. Likewise you are still priveledging a viewpoint.

Yes but how is it proven i.e. shown to be true via evidence or observation over alternatives?

It doesn't work that way John. Atheism is a default position because it is more parsimonous and not a belief but lack thereof. Relativism however is a belief, so it is not necessarily more parsimonious then its alertantives nor is the burden of proof necessarily on absolutism or objectivism.



Had we? Not really John as that's not the point. The point is you are claiming relativism escews a priori reasoning, I show how it does not. To which you reply "I admit no viewpoint is objective"....which is totally off tangent. That simply does not adress my argument or even follow John.


So you argument goes:

Premise: Viewpoints vary.

Conclusion: Thus cognitive relativism is true.

That simply does not follow John.

Some viewpoints can simply be wrong, some can only vary in certain areas with constants etc. Variation does not by itself prove relativism John.

To prove this you must establish the premise: "If viewpoints vary, then relativism is true."

or "viewpoints vary in every way and are all equally accurate."



Numbers, reasoning(assuming its not is a priori assumption), time. The matter isn't even an empirical one John so you are attacking a straw man.


So what? Relativism only exists as a concept as well......


See John the problem is now you are assuming what you are trying to porve. You've yet to show any of what you claim about foundationalism: you merely assume it.

Also you are still not answering a very simple question, which is: does relativism have end points in its reasoning making it finitism or go on forever infinitism? If it is finitism and thus accepts noninferred axioms in what basis then do we reject belief in non-inferred self-evident axioms on principle?


Doesn't work as long as you still privedlege one position over another. Mainly because you are not "de-priveledgizing" anything.


Interesting but a non sequitur. Your argument is thus:

Premise: We do not understand the paticulars of our thought or psychology.

Conclusion: Hence we cannot be objective.

This is missing the premise: If we do not know the paticulars of our mental activities and psychology, we cannot be objective.

Yet offering explanations and methods is to by its very nature argue for one theory over another.


Interesting reading and a worthy goal. But I think you are taking the wrong route.

Primal

I can also toss a coin thirty thousand times and get heads each time, doesn't mean its going to happen.

Devilnaut

You do privilege viewpoints in relativism, based on how well they coincide with other viewpoints. Ultimately it all reduces to how parsimonious a particular "viewpoint" (or sense perception if you'd rather) is with your memory.

John Page

Primal:

Thanks for the post and I'm not trying to avoid your points - I want to show how we can avoid the circular debate.

I acknowledge the issue of priviledge but am trying to convey the possibility of an attitude that discards bias from being "who you are" for the topic under consideration. It seems I'm not doing a very good job. Here's another take on our dichotomy - please don't take the following as my attempt to paint your position (or mine, for that matter).

Fixedman believes things are absolutely true or false.
Floatman believes there is no certainty and everything drifts in relation to its surroundings.

Fixedman can't be absolutely sure of his belief because he doesn't hold a universally applicable proof. He's a little bit floaty.

Floatman cannot be sure there is no certainty, so he cannot gainsay Fixedman, but at least he's being consistent.

Here's my point. Both Fixedman and Floatman can subscribe to a method that takes as many different views into account as practical/possible. They both support this because a) for Fixedman his purported truths become 'closer' to 'objective absolutes' and b) Floatman because the result is more 'view neutral' by cancelling out priviledge inherent in any particular view.

Fixedman believes he is "right" because he shows a "reliable method" for certain scientific truth. Floatman believes he is "right" because his approach accords more with actual experience and scientific results.

De-priviledgization (Reconcilationism). Imagine a universe with no living things (Senselessness). No truths exist for there are no minds to know them. A state of pure relativism exists since there are no minds to have viewpoints. The "views" are constructs of the mind - so if we can understand how these (our) views are created we can neutralize their influence.

Not absolutely rigorous , of course, but that's life. And that's why at the end of the last post I started talking about 'escaping who we are'.

I have to go. Cheers, John

Primal

Yes, that is cohrentism. The problem with that being it 1) Basically reduces itself to circular reasoning. 2) Assumes that this apeal to mere context is itself justifed. 3) Must assume from the onset that all reasoning is based in mere context which is ultimately foundationalist in method.

Thus unless you propose beforehand that the overall context is itself privedged/ accurate, then you are merely going for coherents for sake of coherence. However if you do assume that overall context is accurate, then your method is at some level foundationalist.

Primal

Ah but logic may be such a proof, if so then does fixed man have a leg to stand on? It seems the only way to refute fixedman is to assume from the onset that logic is not such a universally applicable standard.

Yet to say all is relative is to say nothing is certain, thus floatman is not being consistent.

I fail to see how viewpoints can cancel out eachother. Also is fixed man not priveledging neutrality?

The problem is floatman still thinks himself right. I am also not sure what is meant by "actual" experiences....it seems fixedman can call upon what he says is "actual" experience as well.

I don't see how this works. Relativism to me is a belief system, not a state of events.


Can we? This seems to presuppose an extraordinary amount of control over our mental processes. Likewise should we? We can only due so via processes/constructed standards of the mind, which would then just lead us in a self-defeating circle.

Ah but there is no escaping who we are. I do not believe we have free will, I do not believe we can transcend enviroment,genes,causality and the evolutionary forces that shaped us. Such an attempt to escape only leads to unwinable conflict. Instead I believe we should embrace who we are.