John Page

I was puzzled by the following (pasted from an email I received recently):

"...which looks to be little more than a glorified statement of relativism (a view, by the way, which is easily shown to be self-refuting)."

Do you think the respondent was just being opinionated or can relativism easily be shown to be self-refuting? What's the alternative?

P.S. The email was in response to my assertion that there is no such thing as absolute truth or absolute knowledge.

P.P.S. I have clarified that "Cognitive Relativism" is the flavor supposedly being easily refuted.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]</p>

Bluenose

HI John, what sort of relativism are we talking about? Anything can be shown to be self-refuting if defined into straw man or otherwise manipulated out of context. Tell us more. Your PS was posted while I was typing. I agree with the blanket assertion re: absolutes.

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: Bluenose ]</p>

pug846

It depends on how you define "relativism." The classic definition of moral relatvisim found in Christian Philosophy texts defines relativism in such a way that it is inconsisitent. I'm having problems coming up with names of text that come to mind, but I guess that's irrelvant anyway.

pug846

And for the record, denying 'absolutes' doesn't mean that you are stuck with moral relativism. (Although, MR can mean very different things). There are many philosophers who deny 'absolutes,' which is itself a very ambigous term, and still accept that there are moral facts.

Ask THEM what they mean by moral relativism and by absolutes.

John Page

In the email I was accused of espousing a "radical subjectivism". I certainly do believe that the "truth" depends upon the observer.

I conclude that the relativism the author claimed to be easily refutable was "Cognitive Relativism".

Hope this helps you help me.

Kent Stevens

Some types of relativism end up with a contradiction. The statement "there are no absolutes" is supposed to be a contradiction.

Suppose there are no absolutes. But the statement "there are no absolutes" can be considered to be an absolute. This statement is made with certainty which suggests that it is true for all cultures and for all time. But someone was supposed to be suggesting how ridiculous it is to say that morals do not change over time. The contradiction comes in between these two statements "there are no absolutes" versus "there at least one absolute".

I adopt the philosophical position of objective relativism. This acknowledges that morals vary with the culture you are in. At the same time morals are objective in that they can be argued and reasoned about. For example we can apply reason to defending whether abortion is right or wrong.

Laurentius

AVE
___Standing rather on the nihilist side, I've frequently been challenged with such questions: "If you are an absolute denier, how could you possibly state anything?" And I heve always found this a cheap method of shutting me up.
___I think Kent Stevens is attempting to do just that by saying:

___It is like one is refuting the idea that the Universe is expanding by looking in the mirror and saying: "Hey, wait a minute. I'm not expanding, and still I'm part of this Universe. If there is at least one entity in this Universe that is not expanding then the Universe is not expanding either."
___My opinion is that by saying that "there are no absolutes" one is making a point that "there are no absolute principles"; in this case the statement "there are no absolutes" can still stand because it does not necessarily launch a principle and does not necessarily stem in one. It merely states an observation, a simple fact.
AVE

phaedrus

John

Is there any substantiation offered by this particular author as to how he/she claims that cognitive relativism is easily refutable?

(as a side note, one of the basic tenets of Cog. relativism defines that the truth or falsity of statements depend on a set of background conditions or assumptions, which is somewhat similar to your statement "I certainly do believe that the "truth" depends upon the observer". So why do we as a society look for universals all the while you might ask, thats a trait of humanity - to find an all encompassing answer for life and its mysteries and in the course of it forgetting the "individual or the subject" )

Edited to add..maybe these old discussions on these boards should help you...

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000208" target="_blank">Relativism</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000441&p=" target="_blank">Relativism meets the Grim Reaper [i.e., Logic] </a>

Slightly off topic, but even this one offers some discussion on nihilism and solipsism<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=21&t=000053" target="_blank">How do epistemological nihilism and solipsism differ? </a>

[ February 25, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>

Grand Nubian

On another board I discussed what is termed "objective moral values". The person claims that because these OMVs exist as independant truths that are unchangeable and knowable to all.

For example: He says that torturing babies is wrong even if the person(s) torturing the babies thinks it's right.

Even if every living thing thinks that torturing infants is right, it's still wrong.

I tried to explain that he was projecting his own relativism, but he insisted on using my own opposition to baby torturing against my argument.

I know that he was making an error and not allowing me to be objetive(no pun).

In any case, I think that there are some ablsolutes, however, this objective morality is not one of them.

Some things are just relative tp each of us. How can someone refute this set of things without relatively speaking?

But there are also somethings that are absolute. We're not obligated to give all things to one side only.

Kent Stevens

If I was doing what was in the first quote I would be committing a logical fallacy. It is wrong to say that a part necessarily has the characteristics that the whole has. Instead, I was using the law of non-contradiction which is basic to logic.

To say that there is no absolutes means that there is not even one absolute in all our knowledge.

I was just stating a standard objection to relativism. That objection is in one of my books on philosopy.

I do not use the term absolutes. I think absolutes are a misleading religious term. It is redundant to my life just as the term spiritual or faith is. I am much more comfortable using the term basic ideas. I don't think that murder is wrong is an absolute. I do think that it is a basic idea that is common to most people. That murder is wrong is obvious to most people.