AnthonyAdams45

What about my definition of relativism requires that I deny anything beyond the existence of absolutes. It will not do to say my definition is idiosyncratic. In the first place, I can assure you it is not. In the second place, relativism has room for the idiosyncratic. It will not do to say that I am a relativist and so can say anything, as that is what is at issue. It will not do to say I am a relativist and therefore you can say what every you like. Surely your intellectual integrity is greater than that! It will not do to say I am a relativist and will not listen. I will listen. I will speak your language, if you will try to speak mine instead of announcing that all relativists can do is say "bar-bar."

Keith Russell

Greetings:

The allegory of the cave is also inherently flawed. To be able to perceive the shadows as shadows, necessitates that the senses have a certain level of validity.

For the analogy to be valid, consciousness has to be able to derive validity from perceived reality.

Again, subjectivism is self-refuting.

Keith.

John Page

Tilting at windsocks it is then!

Cheers, John

John Page

This re the cave. Not so, a working assumption is fine for me, I have no idea whether reality is analagous to the shadows in the cave concept.

On the other hand, Keith, what is the absolute source of all shadows in your philosophy? Are we all just protuberances in spacetime of some superior structure? What of materialism if we can't even tell where the damn electron is? What chance for objectivism if material just melts away into a collection of effects?

Cheers, John

Keith Russell

John:

If the electron is only an effect, if that's the reality, then--as a wannabe rational person--I have no choice but to accept that reality.

I don't see a problem...

Keith.

John Page

Hugo:

Just to make you feel better, here's my take on the passage you quoted.

Apologies if this is out of context, but we can confront our sentences with things not saturated linguistically! For example, two individuals not speaking a common language can communicate a basic proposition between them, let's say by acting out a sequence of steps and pointing. Such a proposition needs no legitimacy, it simply is.

Cheers, John

John Page

But that's just it, we don't know exactly what an electron is... other than a sub-atomic particle that we posit exists as a result of interpreting experimental data etc.

Cheers, John

Gurdur

This is just nonsense.
Read Gödel's work on fundamental axioms; your stance against empiricism also sits very oddly with what you think forms the basis for science --- let alone reason.

Keith Russell

John:

Our knowledge of it--or lack thereof--changes nothing.

What is, is.

Keith.

NialScorva

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make a lick of sense to me. What do you mean "consciousness has to be able to derive validity from perceived reality". Are you referring to a cartesian attempt to define one's existence from first principles?

Perhaps if you could show how any system does this, it would clear my confusion.


Primal:

I'll get back to you sometime tomorrow or Thursday, hopefully. You misunderstand me, however. I see no conflict between empricism and metaphysical naturalism, I see a conflict between either of them and any form objective ontology.

Perhaps you can clarify where you see the contradiction in empricism and relativism.