Kantian

Now I understand where you’re confused. You see skepticism as a position, not as a method, which is what I was trying to argue, a methodology where claims are judged or evaluated in order to resolve temporary conclusions. Since skepticism is the principle that absolute knowledge is not attainable, inquiry must proceed by doubt and acquisition of estimated or relative knowledge, which is in other words, the scientific method, and that sounds awfully similar to your ‘observation and analysis’ candidate.

By believing all propositions and winnowing out those that are ‘most coherent’ one needs a method to disassociate oneself from initial, originary prejudices and biases. In addition, whatever method one chooses, [your ‘observation and analysis’] if that method introduces doubt to his original beliefs, then that person has been practicing skeptical methods.


Tell that to Primal – because he does not quite grasp the problem of the “given.”

Nice website. Questions: how do you ‘believe both everything and nothing in sequence?’

~Transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

That’s still incorrect. The word ‘knowledge’ is not a singular noun, but an abbreviated description of “X that is correct information.” Then there is no ‘singular noun’ concept you are trying to resuscitate. If all you can do is demand that they are the same concept, then you have not understood my liberal use of Russell’s theory of descriptions. Russell thought that the grammatical structure in language was identical to the logical structure he presented in Principia mathematica. Names or abbreviated descriptions like ‘knowledge’ do not have an intensional meaning, because there is no object that correlates to what ‘knowledge’ denotes. If it is analyzed as a complex sentence, i.e. “the X that is correct information,” then it is not a single concept you are vainly in search for.

:banghead:
Wrong again. The theory of description is the implication of a logical structure in the book Principia Mathematica, not a ‘semantic shell-game’ which is your pet name for whatever confuses you. One of the application of the theory of description is the destruction of the ontological argument.

Wrong. This doesn’t follow. You have to show how this is not a non-sequitur before slapping down your cards on the table. How do I ‘presuppose correct information?’ More likely you are merely wasting my time once again. Perhaps if you had read the link I supplied, you’d not post this idle trash and refrain from re-enacting the popular embedding of your foot in your mouth.

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Kantian

Relativism is not a single entity; it is not a person. Stop treating the ‘ism’ as a subject of homogeneous essence. You continue taking things at a platonic face value, as if the grammatical structure of the word actually affects the logical and actual application. Relativism is the description of the conclusion about a number of beliefs, which is the observation that man’s judgments are always dependent on the shared environment of a specific person in space and time. Whatever anybody believes must be true for that person, so no beliefs can ever be ruled out a priori as mistaken. Protagoras is credited with the origin of relativism, because he wanted to defend sense perception against the views of Parmenides. However, here is what Protagoras did- he took the method of sense perception beyond experience, to other things – namely, beliefs. If the world is a certain way to somebody, then that’s how it is, to him, and it appears to me a different way, then that’s how it is, to me. Thus, error or false belief are absolutely impossible. Protagoras inflated ‘appearance’ to godhood, denying that there is any difference between appearance and Parmenidean reality.

Do you mean that since the individual is already invested in some viewpoint, and not free from all standpoints, it is impossible to ever make a judgment about the equality of all viewpoints? I have already described how one employs skeptical methods and arrive at a relativist position in social beliefs in my response to John “Cap’n Ahab” Page. It happens quite often to young, idealistic college students on their first extended stay in a foreign country.

I am going to assume that the concept of truth is what you are really concerned about, and is why you are so hellbent on refuting relativism by using philosophy 100 pet tricks. We speak of truth often, in so many ways. Yet, the notion of truth presupposes a subject for whom it is true. The only truth is that which is true for someone. Then that implies that there is no such thing as pure forms, things in themselves that are true but unknown, or any other contortions of grammatical confusion. Truth does not exist beyond life as an ideal or a standard, but a function of life. Nietzsche and William James were the first to seriously investigate the monolithic assumption that there is some standard [God, reality] which determines the truth or falsity of our judgments. In other words, realists are half-hearted theists, who remain unable of letting go of the psychological security blanket, God.

A person may become a relativist without having to jump through your contrived hoops of justifications.


That’s appallingly incorrect. Ancient relativism is merely the statement that all viewpoints are equally true, all knowledge is contingent upon some person’s perspective and are valid only within each perspective. Ergo, judgment and evaluation are tools available to even the relativist.

Your argument is this: Relativism is false, because of [insert confused nonsense here]. If you cease treating the word ‘relativism’ as a voodoo symbol that magically transforms grammar and meaning, then you can show how it is false or incorrect by other means.

Back to school, Keith. Improve that F .

~transcendentalist~
__________________
Reason has often led us into transcendent metaphysics that "overstep the limits of all experience, [and] no object adequate to the transcendental ideal can ever be found within experience."

Bill Snedden

Greetings all!

This thread would seem to demonstrate a great likelihood of becoming and remaining a productive and interesting discussion, but I would like to gently remind all participants that productive and interesting discussions are best facilitated by civility on the part of all participants.

Please refrain from name-calling or personal jabs in your posts. It is always acceptable to attack someone's ideas, even with great passion, but never acceptable to attack someone personally. Not that I've seen a lot of this so far (and this post is directed at no-one in particular), but related topics seem to have generated a lot of interest. Consider this a pre-emptive strike.

Thanks for your continued support and cooperation!

Bill Snedden

Keith Russell

kantian said:
"More likely you are merely wasting my time once again. Perhaps if you had read the link I supplied, you’d not post this idle trash and refrain from re-enacting the popular embedding of your foot in your mouth."

Kantian, junk such as the above in no way substitutes for an argument.

You said "Thus, error or false belief are absolutely impossible. Protagoras inflated ‘appearance’ to godhood, denying that there is any difference between appearance and Parmenidean reality."

And yet, kantian, you have the nerve to call my statements 'idle trash'. If error or false belief are impossilble--as you say--then explain your disagreement with me, if you can.

Keith.

Keith Russell

kantian said:
That’s appallingly incorrect. Ancient relativism is merely the statement that all viewpoints are equally true, all knowledge is contingent upon some person’s perspective and are valid only within each perspective. Ergo, judgment and evaluation are tools available to even the relativist.

Judgment and evaluation are available to the relativist?

How, if the relativist has already agreed that--according to ancient relativism--all viewpoints are equally true?

Once one has decided that all viewpoints are equally true, how is further judgment possible?

Any other judgment would alter the relativist assumption, would have to begin with the notion that all viewpoints are not equally valid.

Keith.

99Percent

Yes, a relativist can ultimately respond to any argument: "That is your opinion on the matter."

So in effect any debate with a relativist is futile and pointless.

Its very much like debating with theists There is a denial for a foundation of knowledge and reason on which to base a meaningful discussion.

I wonder why they even bother.

Keith Russell

John asked:

Go Keith!

How about faith? Do you use faith at all?
Beer? I use beer alone.

Cheers, John

No, John. No faith.

(I don't really care for beer, either. Jack and Coke, that's my drink!)

Keith.

Gurdur

Keith Russell,
your argument was already refuted by Kantian in his last post previous to yours ---- I'll re-state Kantian's relevant words in my own words:

1. Note, for the Socratic dialogue's sake of this thread, Hugo Holbling is adopting an extreme relativist standpoint --- but it stands up well under pressure.
   
2. Simply saying "all viewpoints are relative" does not mean one cannot choose a viewpoint ---
   it simply and only means
   no viewpoint can ever be "ultimately legitimized" above all others
   
3. All basis for judgment come within a particular viewpoint
   
   which means:
4. You can judge as much as you like (as an extreme relativist), but only from a particular viewpoint
   
   and
5. A viewpoint cannot be chosen as to its ultimate legitimization, because there is no demonstratable ultimate legitimization
   
   and
6. You can choose any viewpoint you like, but not because of its "ultimate legitimization".

capnkirk

After reading the thread on Relativism and its Detractors...a few observations and some conclusions for your consideration.

Relativism is simply the philosophy of absolute democracy applied to values. In democratizing values, relativism is in effect saying that all values are ultimately decided by the majority view. It DOES deny any intrinsic value for any precept. Relativism dictates that the value of any concept is ultimately just what the majority places on it. All values are therefore subject to the tyranny of the mob!

As a description of a social process, I expect that relativism is a valid algorithm. It is democratic theory applied to the value of ideas. While it ultimately is a valid description of how a society places value on an idea or observation, it addresses only the process, nothing more. It is therefore subject to the same vagaries as pure democratization of law or government.

If you look closely, you will begin to see that this is a corollary for the differences between a democracy and a republic. (Framing the alternative as absolutism mostly serves to disguise the pratfalls of relativism.) Democracy (denying any law but itself) is represented by relativism; the Republic (overlays uniform law beyond which democracy cannot tread) represents the overlay of intrinsic value, redefining relativism as deviation from some intrinsic norm.

This is a very rough analogy, but I think it does help to clarify just what relativsm is, as well as the basis of the detractors' arguments. It really is just the democracy v. republic argument applied to all values and value judgements.

In the D v. R argument, history has come down on the side of R, and so do I. Relativism reflects the process by which society places a value on an idea. It has NOTHING to say about the pragmatic validity of that valuation.