Thomas Ash

Don't worry, I do appreciate it. Sometimes these discussions can go round in circles, with the same complaints about morality, etc. getting thrown at relativists, the relativists not conceding this, and no one really getting anywhere. So, though I find discussions about relativism and morality fascinating, I can understand you might want to stick to the fundamentals of relativism per se.
OK, I'll discuss morality if you insist!... I actually think it's the person claiming that someone 'shouldn't' be amoral who is making the positive assertion, and has to provide a reason. And like I said, I don't think this is even conceivably possible under relativism, regardless of whether it's ultimatately achievable for a non-relativist like me. The reason I say this is that an amoralist could simply say that it is just his point of view that you 'should' do whatever you want, and a relativist would simply have no response to this.
PS: Could you descrive how the evolution of legal systems argues against relativism leading "to hell in a hand-cart." So far as I know, no one's tried a relativist legal system yet.
The Fish quote (and Derrida by extension) I can simply say "not very convincing, alas" to. As for Habermas, I'm not sure I can just say I think it's rubbish - it'd take a bit longer to consider whether there's anything to that sort of linguistic argument, and a bit more reading on my part...
Just in case you couldn't tell, I was joking. I don't actually think 'you darn relativists' are a menace to society like, say, Saddam Hussein .
Best wishes,
Thomas

Hugo Holbling

Hello again, Thomas.

In answer to your first point, i'll continue to defend relativism to the death, making reference again to the intersubjectivity that few here seem to understand. When our friend the amoralist says that he should be able to do as he chooses, the relativist need merely point out that the law disagrees with him. If our amoralist quips in response that the law should have no say in the matter, no system being priviledged over another and what-not, the relativist may retort that a legal system needs no foundation beyond intersubjective agreement.

Moving on to your second problem, let's suppose that the antifoundationalists have something worth saying and that foundationalism has to be given up. What then? We can still agree to call an action 'wrong' by agreement, even if no justification is possible. This is how legal systems operate: in Europe, for example, i'm entitled to freedom from discrimination at work because it has been agreed for whatever reasons that this should be a factor in our society. If, as some have argued, such 'rights' are bunkum, nothing changes for the relativist (or antifoundationalist) who doesn't believe that foundationalist argument can mean anything.

It strikes me that the democratization of truth, morality and epistemology generally that come from antifoundationalism is what get's the foundationalist goat, but consider an example. If i live in a house with a Christian, a utilitarian, a Kantian and a Rortian (me!), all agree to not steal each others things for entirely different reasons and it makes no difference that we arrive at a decision to not lock our doors from differing justifications. When our relativist complains that each of us uses a priviledged viewpoint, none of which can be priviledged, we reply that this is irrelevant to intersubjective agreement.

Thus, i find that we may well be in the hand-cart, but we require another push from you before we set off anywhere...

Primal

Already have, the idea that "I exist", that I have sensations and the idea of possibility.



[Switching the burden of proof now? The point is IF you want to say
a claim is open to doubt you want to declare it "uncertain" and hence not absolute.

Besides even if the claim would "then" exist in relation to "Proof" is meaningless, as you have failed to show such a relation in the first place. How is it succeptible(and hence related) to any external disproof?


Are you trying to say that just because something is physically connected to another claim its epistemic status is thus relative? If so you are attacking a straw man as that's not the issue, the issue isn't whether it is in relation to other ideas or floats in a vaccuum in the mind: but whether the other ideas its in relation too can lower its epistemic status.

Name some.

John you were the one that made the declaration of something being impossible, I merely said that was a rather absolute statement....since when did the subject change to me declaring something impossible?



Okay lets look at the statement: "Impossible.....sometimes." It doesn't take long to realize how absurd it is. That's like saying "Absolute....sometimes."

"Exceptionless but with exception."




The test of whether or not they are actually, not within the realm of possibility. I don't see what's so hard to understand about my statement.

So are we developing a new langauge?


Above.

I'm not changing what word I use simply because it doesn't fit your system of thought.
In case you haven;t noticed my standards are not yours.....thus this request is somewhat unrealistic in its scope.

So is your answer "no"? Again you are changing the subject, it's quote obvious I refer to beings that CAN comprehend. You're always changing the subject John Page.



Who says a wprd has to be defined to be understood? I don't have a definition for the word yellow, but if someone says yellow I'm pretty sure what that means, to me at least.


Ah I see. Then what is a lightwave? What is perception?

Is that really a definition John or a description/explanation?




And did you lack understanding before studying optics?

The apeal to perception of a certain wave-length sounds like question begging. As does the apeal to "color". What is perception? What is "color"? What is "light"?



Ohk.....but does that mean I don't see "yellow" when I do? John you fail to realize that another's senses do nothing to negate or affirm the existence of my own....


Invalid, your argument so far goes:

Primal cannot define existence
Primal cannot define "I"
Thus the statement "I exist" is not certain.

Does not follow. for it to follow you'd need the premise "Anything to be certain must be defined" which is very questionable.

What does it mean to define? Basically it means to describe things in reference to simpler or better known percepts or to solidify an otherwise vague/ambiguous word. The words "I" and "exist" are neither overly vague/ambiguous or unfamilair so definition is uneccessary. Percepts come before definition not vice versa.


Actually I asked a pretty simple, straight-forward question "can you ever prove in any way that one does not exist?"

To which you requested definitions instead of answering, and I don't think the words need to be defined. Perhaps you should try dictionary.com.

Nope I'm making a point concerning symbols and equality. In principle your same objection would hold for both enterprises.




That's rather fundamental John and not really in need of being answered. What do you not understand, the term "A" or "equal" or "itself"? I only use definitions to clarify if the other really does not understand...do you really not understand my terms John?


That's a totally unwarranted assumption John. Like I said its not an empirical matter so your request for an example is a bit, well, inappropriate.

Also what makes you think the idea "one conceptual truth is as good as another"? That's a very loose interpretation though a self-satisfying one. Ignoring the term "Itself" which you form some reason interpret as "another concept" by some strange means.





I'm presuming you mean "dialecticism" which isn't a school of logic but an aspect of Hegelian/Marxist philosophy.




Ever heard of implication?


I've read a bit about them here: http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/LOG/

Though I fail to see how it disproves the notion the 2 plus 2 equals 4......

And why can't any rules be absolute?


Again: My question did not concern sensory correlation with the objective world.


Yet again, my question is: Can you deny or disporve the notion that you have sensations? The above seems to be "no" in which case you have to either reject the claim "I am having a sensation" or admit it as absolute.




In that sense yeah, they are physically relative that is in relation to nerve cells etc. But by that token they can still be epistemically absolute "certain or universal in truth-value/application."





Yes I agree and do not believe changing your mind is a contradiction. Basically they no longer believe it....so there is no more contradiction in them saying "it's not true."


Well we can entertain or understand an opponent or other idea without believing it. Likewise people can contradict themselves, which is my point. How we do so exactly? That's a matter of cognitive science.

The term absolute relativism makes no more sense then the term "relativistic absolutism" or anti-foundationalist, foundationalism. Perhaps its just better to admit some things as relative and some as absolute with both being in some way objective?

John Page

I thought it would be appropriate to string together some of the interchange I'm having with Primal. What becomes apparent toward the end is that Primal declares "I" and "exist" too basic to be defined. For my part, without such definitions we can have little further debate on the topic of Primal's absolute truth "I exist".

Well, Primal, unless I can understand what you mean by having the idea "I exist" you might as well be declaring "God exists". I think it is perfectly reasonable of me to ask for definitions and explanations of supposed absolute truths put forward as objections to relativism.

Cheers, John

John Page

Excuse me, but if you wish to write to the Oxford English Reference Library and point out to them that they are inventing a new langauge, please don't let me stop you.

Cheers, John

John Page

I think its very much in need of being answered and for very fundamental reasons. (BTW, I think I understand the terms being used here but my question is How?

I don't know, Sir, I don't make them!!

Cheers, John

Primal

Are you asking for a causal mechanism?

Primal

John you obviously have a very poor understanding of the nature of definitions.

In anu case at some level they must end with undefined words, such as existence,sight,percept etc. With any attempt to define such words being circular in the end(and hence not really clarifying anything.)

This is true otherwise we end with infinite regress, in which it must be assumed that nothing is really defined at all(as our dictionaries are not infinite in scope.) Please look up the word sight on dictionary.com.

Eventually you will get to the definition:

Which when we look up "see" leads to:

And when you look up perceive:

Taking us right back to sight, or where we started from in the first place.

Do the same for reality,existence, I,self, true,false, fact etc.

Basic concepts or percepts. These things are not defined because they get their meaning from their percepts or underlying concepts, not underlying words. And definition is used for clarification or establishing a claim, both of which cannot be done via the thing the words rely on to become clarified and established themselves.

John Page

Yes, its a Theory of Mind thing. What is the *I* and how does it come to be (*exist*).

Cheers, John

John Page

I agree! When I was about 15 I looked through a dictionary to try and find "root" meanings but, as I think you are observing, I found all words are defined in terms of other words - hence the circularity. Thus, in a phenomenal sense, all words are adjectives that are used to refer to an object/situation in the 'physical' world or to an imaginary object/situation in the mind.

This is why I wanted to get down to specific examples of proposed absolute truths, rather than try an resolve the issue with logic/math and other forms of language.

What I have concluded (but am not absolutely sure of ) is that even in the 'physical' world, nothing has been found to be unchanging. This is consistent with a theory of perception that proposes for something to *be* in our minds, it must have first been differentiated by the mind from the sense data on its surroundings. (e.g. if everything were black, how would you no it was black - as opposed to white).

Assuming the above Comparison/Detection Theory is accurate, I then suggest that all mental objects come into being (i.e. in our minds) due to the differences in our environment. This being the case, we can only 'possess' mental objects through the relative differences in sense data - hence my Relativistic stance.

Footnotes. 1. Please accept that I do not understand consciousness and the model described here is not intended to explain exactly how we become aware of 'mental objects' mentioned above. 2. Axiom #3 of my philosophy 'Ontologic' is "Comparison Reveals Existence" and I use a formulaic expression of this concept to show how propositional logic and set theory work and explain some of the paradoxes found therein.

Cheers, John