• SatmBopd
    91
    I am simultaneously a passionate proponent of relativism and a passionate critic of the preponderance of relativism in our cultures. I will provide two conflicting sets of arguments to illustrate this. I am currently passionately in favor of both sets of arguments. I want to know how I can reconcile them. Or perhaps you think one should be rejected? Interested in your feedback.

    Arguments 1 - Truth is the mechanism by which knowledge is no longer sought

    Consider this statement;

    “There is such a thing as a perfect epistemological system, or a reliable way to ascertain truth and falsehood.”

    Is the above statement true or false?

    If you say it’s true, according to which epistomolicial system do you do so? Because if it is any epistemological system then you are begging the question (and if you are not using an epistemological system then you’re just sayin’ sh*t, and that doesn’t do us any good!).

    If you say it is false, then by golly! How do you know that?

    All of this to say, that truth is stupid. I think it is very clear that if truth exists (which I guess it might) we have no way of knowing it. Not with certainty.

    But that’s not even my biggest problem.

    Maybe, if I’m understanding this wrong, or there are some fancy-shmancy advances in Science and Mathematics that account for epidemiological concerns, we will discover that it is, beyond a shadow of a doubt (beyond even the shadow of a really tenacious doubt), possible for humans to ascertain truth with 100% certainty.

    This discovery would, with 100% certainty (that “with 100% certainty” was rhetorical) be the single most harmful intellectual development in human history.

    Consider that there is such a thing as deception.

    To deceive someone, it’s easy, you simply present a fictitious world which has enough convincing elements to appear as a non-fictitious world from the perspective of the victim in question. Many elements can help the believability of your deception. Rhetorical techniques can be employed to build rapport with you and your victim. You can speak with authority, evoke the feeling of trustworthiness by associating yourself with well respected people or concepts (it’s always good to surround your lies with truths).

    The danger of a perfect epistemological system is that, by definition, it would be the single most powerful and convincing rhetorical element to employ when constructing a lie. All you have to do is be smart enough to convincingly associate whatever idea you like with the all-powerful objective system of truth, and ironically enough, you can make people believe whatever you want.

    Furthermore, even if you were sincere in your efforts to use this epistemological system, how would YOU know that it really was as reliable as its proponents claimed? The only way would be to investigate its underlying logic yourself, which would require time, honesty, and interest in philosophy, which is another way of saying that almost no one would actually do this. Thereby, even in the case of a real system of epistemological truth actually existing and actually being proven, this only solves the problem for a small subset of the population (namely the nerds [and I don't think it would be good for us to hold all the power]).

    This exact problem is already basically happening with science. Scientific methods are nearly universally respected as reliable ways to ascertain truth AND not everyone is a scientist, so pretty much all anyone has to do is articulately say that their ideas are associated with science, and many well meaning people will just be deceived.

    Worse yet, once a deception has taken place, and it is wrongly understood as truth, any objection is often met negatively, sometimes with very deeply rooted vengeance, and this volatility increases the more strongly believed the fiction is. A perfect epistemological system would increase the capacity for fictions to be deeply rooted, worsening this problem.

    When things are not said to be certain, and the question is still up in the air, more inquiry and investigation is wont to take place. Where firmly held beliefs are not involved, there is a playground for creativity in intellectual investigation that is actually really welcoming to an investigation of whatever deeper truths (or at least phenomena) there might be.

    Conversely, once something is said to be true, there is no longer a need for investigation and the result is only stagnation.

    In this way, relativism is in the service of truth, and systems of truth are directly in service of deception and control over the freedom of thought.

    People want their worldviews to be justified, so they look for ways to really ground and make believable their ALREADY EXISTING notions about the world. Perhaps with no exceptions, we DO NOT disinterestedly ask “what is true” and embark on an unbiased and completely impersonal investigation of our minds and the universe. We do not have the pure-hearted aim of finding something beautiful.

    “Therefore, we need to be rid of this dangerous apparatus of truth before more falsehoods are convincingly propagated, and the investigation of questions is made to be taboo”.

    (The above statement is of course TRUE and not FALSE).

    Arguments 2 - No, I’m sorry. Your “subjective preference” does not make a 10 second TikTok video of a dog standing on the floor and being a dog more enriching to your life than the complete works of William Shakespeare.

    Relativism allows the appeal to subjectivity, making it perhaps the single most harmful intellectual development in human history.

    The appeal to subjectivity is a universally applicable way to shut down any question you do not like. One’s subjective experience, in virtue of not being accessible to anyone else, can be said to be whatever the subjective agent in question wants it to be. Therefore, the appeal to subjectivity can be tailor made for any argument, so as to reject (or make) any proposition, without fear of recompense.

    This makes it possible for all propositions to be of equal value. And all (or a butt load of) beliefs to be believable. I suppose, by no appeal to truth can I reasonably convince a relativist that such wishy-washiness is adverse in the least. But if I present the following two propositions:

    Proposition 1:
    You should eat food today.

    Proposition 2:
    You should take some forks, and jab them into your eyes.

    “I have a difficult to articulate but immensely powerful feeling that the first proposition is somehow categorically preferable to the second one”.

    (The above statement is of course, itself, an appeal to subjectivity).

    One has to imagine that the amalgamation of all the propositions in the world would not be a collection of exactly interchangeable dopplegangers. Why would we need to exchange any idea at all if the ideas that we started with were already as useful as they could be? The appeal to subjectivity can equally be in service of a bland idea, as it can be in service of a beautiful idea, so it is not a good measure as to which ideas have value.

    A better solution would be an epistemological system of truth, whereby given propositions could be measured according to some standard of value that is traceable so that consistent, measurable progress could be made in the analysis of ideas.

    I am suspicious that many (not all) appeals to subjectivity are not motivated by a sincere, and defensible effort to implore us to recall our biases and increase the nuance of our ideas by incorporating considerations from the multiple perspectives from which different individuals (and even the same individuals at different times) necessarily have to contend with. Instead, I fear that many (not all) appeals to subjectivity are merely defense mechanisms, with which interesting (or dangerous, which should be a synonym for interesting in my opinion [yet another appeal to subjectivity]) ideas can reliably be disregarded. This is yet another weapon in the service of reducing the propagation of variable investigation of ideas.

    Thus, systems of truth are in service of the investigation of ideas, and relativism is in service of confusion, denial and (all too often) low quality ideas.
  • Raymond
    815
    I have thought long and deep about this issue. Ontological relativism is the way out of all misery. The realization that all worldviews are just stories not to be taken too seriously is an enlightening realization. Difficult to accept, since the idea of one and only objective reality was introduced in old Greece, and we still feel the burden as the inheritors of old Greek ideas. But the only way to a true humanity and proper evaluation of human freedom of ideas and action. Everybody wants to know what the truth is and that it's applicable universally. That's why truth can only be relatively objective.
    For example, I have a worldview. I think it's watertight and unshakable. It has grown over the years and the pieces have fallen into place finally. By self-criticism and adjustments over time I can say safely now that this truth is self consistent and compatible with current fundamentals of physics, explaining how the universe came to be and functions at a fundamental level and how the brain interacts with the physical world around us, what consciousness is, etc. A kind of theory of everything. I consider this an objectively existing world created by gods. That's my story.
    But I realize it's just my story. Other people, or groups have other stories. They think I fit in their story objectively just as they in mine. It doesn't make sense to ask who's more, or less right. All people are. I don't mean that everything you fantasize is the truth. Or that lies don't exist.
  • pfirefry
    118
    How would you summarise your arguments? Here's is my attempt:

    1. We cannot trust a perfect epistemological system because it can deceive us
    2. We need an epistemological system to avoid a complete chaos of thought

    Here is the logical answer: We need an imperfect epistemological system. Or perhaps multiple such systems to continuously challenge and balance each other out.
  • Judaka
    1.7k

    It is boring to even talk about relativism in the sense of "the truth" vs "my truth", you need to stop treating this concept of truth with such reverence. It is unimportant, whether something is "true" or not, what's important is that the constellation of truths, opinions, interpretations, characterisations used in understanding will always differ from person to person. How that same constellation is arranged in the narrative, in emphasis, in context and circumstance. Are feelings of an emotional, psychological or physical variety at play? What logic is being employed and where? What is being excluded from this constellation and why? These are the questions that matter, that you take offence to an opinion being called truth or a truth an opinion, doesn't. When incorrectly calling falsehood truth directly leads to disaster, we know it was a mistake by the result, otherwise, it doesn't really matter.
  • SatmBopd
    91

    Ok, Interesting. Part of my entire problem is trying to summarize these arguments. It might even straight up answer my question if I could do it perfectly. Here is another attempt:

    1. Epistemological systems and the concept of truth are too often, and too easily used in service of stagnation of thought and deliberate deception.
    (or... 1. "Truth" is often harmful, not just uncertain)
    2. When there is no standard of truth (or like truth) to hold our thoughts accountable, then everyone is easily misguided, and you might as well not ask questions for the impact it has.

    I'm starting to think that it is the way in which truth is used that is the key issue, rather than the concept itself...
  • SatmBopd
    91

    But what if one person's story is demonstrably harmful, and another person's is not. For example.

    1. Human beings (more realistically "human beings" would be replaced with a particular subset of human beings) are a toxic stain on the earth. I am enraged and I will act upon this with malice.

    2. Humans are frustrating but cool. I'm just gonna hang out.

    How can you pick one of these over another without somehow saying "one of these stories is not as good as the other one". And how can you do that without having (even subconciously) some measurable standard for... something approximating truth?

    People also share their stories with each other, and we influence each other's stories. Isn't it appropriate to ask "what should it look like when we do this? If it's just a crapshoot and a low quality idea wins the day, won't that be sub optimal? What if you have a problem, and you need to change another person's worldview in order to get them to help you to solve it? Consider issues like climate change, or activism on other topics, if we just relent and say "everyone has their story" then how will you convincingly make your position known?

    I see there is a difficulty in accepting our worldviews as mere stories, instead of having ontological importance, but isn't there also a difficulty in accepting responsibility in the name of a particular value?
  • Raymond
    815
    see there is a difficulty in accepting our worldviews as mere stories, instead of having ontological importance, but isn't there also a difficulty in accepting responsibility in the name of a particular value?SatmBopd

    As long as one story with ontological importance for the people telling them is not made to bow to others or worse, is tried to be wiped from the face of the Earth by force, there is nothing wrong. It's here where the real moral issues must be looked for. In imposing truth in the name of, be it science, God, or stellar constellations.
  • Agent Smith
    9.5k
    You're right, but then you're not.
  • Hermeticus
    181
    The framework I've adopted to resolve the duality between objective truth and relativism is one of "layered context".

    Essentially, for every subjective layer of context, there is one objective truth. The same layer of context can never contradict itself - but individual layers may contradict each other to any degree.

    This framework doesn't really help in determining if there is some objective truth at all - but it does allow to see eye-to-eye with any individual and engage in meaningful discussion regardless of the given statement and it's implications.
  • SatmBopd
    91
    That is interesting.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.