Primal

Yes and I'm asking for what those standards are.....



Yes you are as you believe it, meaning you think it true and suspect the existence of absolutes to be impossible. Your claim is also universal in scope i.e. absolute. If youa re going to say your claim is relative but still universal in scope and/or certain, then you are mutating the definition of the word "absolute."




But then by that standard I have no experience of something being relative either. Where in my experience for example can I find "the relative"? Or the "relativity" of all knowledge?

There is a lot of stuff I believ in without direct experience, abiogenesis, the existence of africa, other planets, and the evolution of dinosaurs.



Different in what sense? Are you then adhering to difference for difference sake? Or are you adhering to difference because that is in some way better?



So you adhere to relativism because it's "different"?



I will admit we do learn by experience but to then say all learning is by direct,empirical experience is a totally different kind of animal altogether. Trial and error are not the only way to attain knowledge.


Not really, as given your reasoning, half of science, logic and math would have to go. Since they are not succeptible to direct trial and error.




You thought so on what basis? Because Dialetheism could be compatible with some alleged systems of logic that makes it a system of logic in itself?

I actually found the article most disagreeable and the author's(who is a chief advocate of dialetheism) argument's problematic.



But I have no direct experience of another's reasoning.....I can only see figures that respond a certain way. I do not even know if they have thoughts given your standards of evidence.


Nice paint job but you didn't in any way refute my statement.



The basic one they teach in text books , for an Intro read "Why people believe weird things". Basically one that goes by noncontradiction,identity etc. i.e. logic.



Moore's paradox my friend. You are contradicting yourself.

"I believe I'm sitting but it isn't true." Is a contradiction.


Just being as clear as possible for you John....

Okay. I see no problem with that.


You are using the term viewpoint in two different senses here: 1) To refer to any belief in general. 2) To refer to a contingent belief. When I agreed I meant the former only, not the latter.


Yes, exactly. I've always maintained relativism wrong at the fundamental axiomic level, I am merely showing how it's wrong at higher levels as well.

And oddly enough relativism must reject objectivism as wrong at an a priori, fundamental level as well. Contradictory as that is.

Wait....truth? I thought you said there was no "true" or "truth" only different......


Straw man.

A claim's being objective does not mean you adopt all viewpoints at once.

Again its not as simple as:

Realtivism

or

Omniscience.

There are simply more options then you allow. Options such as provisional objectivism, variable(strong) objectivism and an absolutism that allows for human error.

Primal

If your system does not make all beliefs equal then your belief system is not relativism. I likewise find the same problem with regards to ethics though I believe ethical norms to be agent dependent: I must ask "equal to whome?" which is why I am not an ethical relativist.

AnthonyAdams45

What about the above definition entails "all systems are equal"? And if the above definition is not relativism, it is most assuredly not absolutism. I am prepared to call it relativism. What would you call it?

Maybe you think it's absolutism?

I think I like quoting myself.

John Page

Immediately above your post I said "Please consider that the "standards" you refer to are necessarily inherent in the viewpoint under consideration." i.e. we can differ as to the standards we wish to apply.

It appears to me as though you are applying objectivist standards that require an absolute standard (primacy of reason etc.).
No its not, for the umteenth time, its relative to my viewpoint.
Objectivism maintains the primacy of logic, such logic defining truth functional relationships.
You believe in objectivism, too! By what standard to you know that objectivism is absolutely true?
Doesn't matter, to describe the difference is to flesh out the relation between two things.,..
Only half? Seriously, the flaws in our understanding should be open to correction and we do not know a priori where we are in error.
No I'm not and we've done this before.
All beliefs are contingent truths therefore any "belief in general" is a contingent "truth in general".
:banghead: Relativism does not "reject" objectivism, as I've tried to explain before, the relativist viewpoint explains how the objectvist standpoint occurs. Since relativism does not endorse a particular standpoint it does not require any a priori assumptions, rather, it requires you to discard them
Here's my comment you were responding to "A truth is relative to the mind that thinks it...." A truth is not a universal, its a thought we can share and agree on or disagree on. I don't think I denied the existence of truth.
... in which case it can only be partially objective. My relativism admits that some claims can be more objective than others.
Anything less than being fully objective, i.e. using evidence from all points of view, results in a relativistic stance. Period. Hopefully we now agreed that our points of view are relative tot he reality we inhabit and we might proceed to argue about how relative they are.

Cheers, john

Primal

Sounds like provisional objectivism i.e. all claims are true to a probable degree. Why call it relativism though when it isn't? To me it's starting to seem more like your preference is more a matter of aesthetics at this point then anything else.

Nope. And I have said this many times before but will say it again:

There is more out there then a) relativism and b) absolutism. At least in respect to the extremes of both schools which you seem to be arguing over here.

Primal

And what standards then do you apply? Do you think its okay for example if my "standard" is the "literal" word of the Bible or Mein Kempf?

First off I don't think all reasoning is absolute. Secondly, how am I applying objectivist standards simply by asking you what standards you think we should use? Is the question really so hard to answer? Are you trying to buy time or something by avoiding it?


Yes John just keep tapping your red shows together and repeat "it's not absolute" over and over. And maybe it'll come true. Or maybe not.

Your personal incredulity aside your belief system still contains the traits of an absolutist statement 1) It's universal in scope. 2) It declares something impossible(certainty.)



Defining or evaluating John. I would agree with you as long as you don't think logic simply makes something true by "definition" at this point.


I've already answered this John. It's more or less self-evident and solpsism/relativism are incoherent. As I am not an absolutist then I am an objectivist. Likewise are you saying belief in the things I have listed is unwarranted?


I think it does matter if you are merely adhering to difference for its own sake. As that turns all issues in science in philosophy into nothing more then a past-time. No better at describing the world then art.


What do you mean only half?! That's a hell of a lot more then I'm willing to just through away. Yes scientists do make mistakes and those should be corrected but not by arm chair philosophers who adhere to a sort of positivism. Remember John for every Galileo that's right there are ten thousand Ken Hovinds that are wrong.


Yeah and you keep making the same mistake. That's why.


So wait. Are you saying all beliefs are contingently true? If so then why did you say before none were true or false but merely "different". It seems like your philosophy is in conflict with itself. Likewise to make a belief contingently true is to priveledge it John.


Yet it makes a priori assumptions anyways John. All belief systems do-even solipsism and skepticism. That's just how our brain works. Your statement is the equivalent to me saying "atheists do not breath air." No matter how many times I say it, the fact is atheists do.

Relativists believe relativism is true i.e. the nature of belief. Since Objectivism is thus exclusive to relativism then it must be false.

A truth relative to the mind can reflect a universal description of reality. I am not saying the mind is literally "universal" or thoughts exist outside the mind (straw man absolutism/objectivism) I am saying that the mind can know something universal about the rest of nature or existence in general.

Well then its not really relativism John. Also how did you come to the conclusion that objectivism is equivalent to absorbing another's viewpoint? That's not what I mean by objectivism. That sounds more like the "intersubjectivism" you always talk about.



On my side or theirs. US or the Axis of Evil. For me or against me.

Sorry John but it's not that clean cut. I will agree truth is "relativistic" all truth, but that doesn't prove relativism. Truth is "relativistic" in the broadest sense, that of being in relation to something, like the mind. But not in the sense that all truths are now equal, arbitrary, uncertain or illusory. That's because an object's being "relativistic" does not make it exclusive to being "absolutistic" not in relation to or independent of other things. For example my viewpoints exist in relation to my brain structure but independent of lets say, the number of stars in another galaxy. Or my thought may be relative as it is exists in relation to other neurons but absolute in the sense that it is certain. Note: I am using the words absolute and relative in weaker more flexible terms here then would normally be used by an extreme relativist or absolutist.


Yes relative in the weak sense, but in a sense absolute as well.

John Page

None, and for the reasons explained before. Relativism may or may not be true - depends on the standards you wish to apply.
No, I'm not. Is the answer really so hard to understand (mocking tone) - standards are amorphous and implicit/relative to any viewpoint. Stop trying to kick the legs out from under a straw man who doesn't have any. (Metaphorically speaking).
It's more of a "what can I trust I don't believe anythings absolutely true" disbelief system. Relativism doesn't claim to be universal, for about the third time, it can explain how the objectivist viewpoint comes to be and the illusion of (absolute) certainty is created.
Well a system of logic doesn't make something true, it provides a definition of the truth and how to solve for it. The fact that you can reverse engineer your system of logic to make some results true where they were previously false shows this to be the practical effect, i.e. there is no absolute truth.
Unsubstantiated. IMO your stance turns science into an art by closing your mind certain possibilities.
No, I was asking you.
Not if for the sake of hypothesis.
What a priori assumptions do you believe are inherent in relativism?
I don't believe relativism is true or false any more than objectivism is true or false. It seems that you have this desire to put true or false on 'isms. You may observe that relativism is truer for me than for you and vice versa for objectivism.
It can think that it knows - the mind infers the universal through comparison with its experience. The "universal description" as you call it is relative to the minds that use or subscribe ot it.
So your objectivism is not the objectivism that proclaims the primacy of reason, then?


Cheers, John

Primal

So you are not offering an alternative? Well then you have no reason to criticize me for declaring reason,logic,and evidence to be the best methods we have.


I am not. I'm asking a very simple question. What are you methods for determining truth-values?


Relativism declares there are no absolute truths. That ALL truth is relative and equal. Saying "there are no" and "all" is universal in scope.

I think logic at the basic/axiomic level, reflects truth and with application of such axioms can lead us to truth or the highest degree of truth possible.


How can you reverse engineer logic in this way? Only if you change the premises i.e. change the evidence in which case it's supposed to change. Self-correction is the strength of, not the weakness, of evidentialism.

However likewise according to logic certain axioms cannot be refuted even in principle because logic relies on these axioms. Axioms such as noncontradiction,identity,inference.

You are saying relativism is "different" and you believe it because it's different. That's difference for difference' sake.

Well then "no." I believe most are but not all by any means.


I don't know what you mean exactly? That you can believe in a hypothesis while maintaning that such a hypothesis is not true? Well then you are not believing it but considering/entertaining it.

A rejection of absolutism, an interpretation of sensations as not necessarily accurate, and a belief that human beings are fallible. Also a belief that truth values are equal.

So then you don't believe in relativism, in which case you are not a relativist.


So it's not true for you but it's truer? That doesn't make sense.

But this presumes all knowledge stems from experience. At this point you are engaging in circular reasoning.


No, my objectivism allows for this. Relativism does not allow for anything to be true or claims to be inequal in regards to truth-value though John, making you a nonrelativist if you say claims can be true or nonequal.


Lastly I glad we agreed on the rest.

AnthonyAdams45

What about that definition of relativism? What about that definition entails "all systems are equal"? And if the above definition is not relativism, then nothing is, as it is Protagoras' own original statement of relativism.

John Page

I don't need to offer an alternative and I suppose reason and logic can be considered mightier than swords.
As I asked before, what kind of logic do you subscribe to?
I'm not sure I said "and equal", equality being a subjective judgement. As a relativist, I am merely pointing the absence of any absolute truths - however, this supposition is unproven. Rather like the EOG debates, we need to be specific as to what we mean by "truth". Do you agree that propositions fabricated by mankind are not absolute truths? Relativism's claims only apply to the relativisitic viewpoint.

In my humble and subjective opinion, relativism is to atheism as objectivism is to deism.
Self serving.
. Evidentialism would seem to lead to relativism, there being no evidence to prove absolute truth is any thing more than an oxymoron.
This logic is self-serving, then. Do you have an explanation as to why logic works - or do you just accept it on faith?
The difference seems real to me, but not to you. That's more support for relativism don't you know?
A hypothesis need be neither true or false.
(This your response to my asking what a priori assumptions you thought were in relativism).
1. False. Relativism accepts absolutism as being possible but unproven (by its own implied absolute standards)
2. Neither true nor false since relativism admits that some sensations can be interpreted more accurately than others.
3. Neither true nor false since relativism admits that human beings can soemtimes succeed.
4. False. The value of a truth is in relation to the mind of the truth knower.
Non seq. Your conclusion seems to stem from some belief that all beliefs are truths. This is my hypothesis, anyway.
Not what I said. What is true for an objectivist doesn't necessarily hold for a relativist, to which this debate is witness.
No I'm not, you are.
Faulty objectivist reasoning again. Truths are relative, truth values may be unequal w.r.t. the observer.

Cheers, John