• tim wood
    9.2k
    I define relativism, here, as simply the attitude and belief that your views cannot bind me (except perhaps as supported by irresistible force), because I have my own that I hold are at least as valid. (An example, if any reader here needs one: you hold that all persons have equal standing, with equal justice for all, while I, on the other hand, believe that subjugation and exploitation of inferior persons - the many - for the benefit of the few - me - is right, correct, and appropriate.)

    Nihilism (I define here): the belief and attitude that ultimately nothing matters, nothing has any ultimate or absolute value or significance.

    I don't much like either, as I suppose every right-thinking person doesn't. But how simple or difficult is it to conclusively refute them? By conclusive refutation I understand an argument in the presence of which we may judge any relativist or nihilist as simply vicious, and act accordingly. (Another example: an otherwise competent person who refuses to issue correct change for a purchase because, he claims, his arithmetic is better than yours, or is at least equally valid (hence he'll keep your money), cannot be taken at face value, and it would be a foolish error to meet him at the level of a discussion of the validity of simple arithmetic, instead of, say, calling the police or threatening him with a stick - an argumentum ad baculum.)

    If relativism holds, then you and I are both right (because each of us claims to be, QED). Anyone is right who claims to be right. If everyone is right, no one is. The notion of right loses its substance. If there is no right, then nihilism holds; i.e., the claim that nothing matters is right (with some merit to the claim, if relativism holds). A fortiori, relativism is a species of nihilism, or just nihilism in disguise.

    But, right retains its substance, and (some) things do matter.

    And just here, I'm thinking, the argument (as bare as it is, here) is conclusive.

    Or is it? Am I mistaken? How would you mend, or make, the argument?
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I don't much like either, as I suppose every right-thinking person doesn't. But how simple or difficult is it to conclusively refute them?tim wood

    Pretty simple, actually, for they are self-refuting. The claim that all truth is relative is itself asserted absolutely. The claim that nothing has any meaning or value, if true, must itself have no meaning or value.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    Consider a claim such as "it is illegal for two women to marry". It's true in some places and false in others. As such, the truth of "it is illegal for two women to marry" is relative. Does it then follow that there is no fact of the matter? Of course not. In some places it really is illegal, and in some places it really isn't.

    Although this really depends on what you mean by nihilism. If you mean it in the sense that there is no inherent fact of the matter (i.e. a discoverable fact like the speed of light as opposed to an imposed fact like the rules of chess), then sure; relativism likely entails nihilism. But it would be a mistake to go from "it is not an inherent fact that it is illegal for two women to marry" to "it is not a fact that it is illegal for two women to marry".
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Pretty simple, actually, for they are self-refuting. The claim that all truth is relative is itself asserted absolutely. The claim that nothing has any meaning or value, if true, must itself have no meaning or value. — Thorongil
    I am not aware of any relativists who trouble to claim that all truth is relative. Possibly because they're simply too thoughtful and well-informed - even educated - for such a claim to occur to them. Further I do not know what truth is. Do you? If you think you do, please say here what you think truth is.

    As to relative truth, I'm thinking that whatever is true, is true absolutely. Of course you'll almost immediately think of exceptions, but the trick lies in recognizing that the exception is not an exception at all, but is instead a different proposition altogether that merely resembles the original.

    With respect to relativism itself, it's not whether this is true or that false, but rather the assertion that I'm right (in my beliefs and attitudes, and of course my actions), or that my position is justified (and yours isn't even part the discussion). So the first hurdle to get over, or trap to avoid, is that the refutation of relativism/nihilism is not just a clever - if irrelevant - logic game.

    Your argument against nihilism suffers worse flaws. If the nihilist's claim that nothing has any meaning or value is true, rendering even his claim both meaningless and valueless, he likely would say, "Amen, buy me a beer!"

    The refutation of relativism, it seems to me, lies in finding something appropriate that is non-relative. My own instincts suggest the effective way is to show that where relativism is invoked to serve some particular interest, the same relativism grounds and warrants directly antithetical interests. If successful, the relativist is either evicted from his relativism, or,if he persists, one is permitted to judge him merely vicious.

    Similarly with nihilism. The refutation lies in identifying something that matters.
  • Srap Tasmaner
    4.9k

    I think the natural ground to look at is communication, since the relativist and friend are talking to each other, understanding each other's assertions, and so on. The question is how much mileage you can get out of that. It might be a lot.
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    I am not aware of any relativists who trouble to claim that all truth is relative.tim wood

    Then they're not relativists....

    Further I do not know what truth is. Do you?tim wood

    Ignorance of the truth does not entail its nonexistence.

    With respect to relativism itself, it's not whether this is true or that false, but rather the assertion that I'm right (in my beliefs and attitudes, and of course my actions), or that my position is justified (and yours isn't even part the discussion). So the first hurdle to get over, or trap to avoid, is that the refutation of relativism/nihilism is not just a clever - if irrelevant - logic game.tim wood

    I'm not seeing any great difference between asserting that something is true and asserting that one is right. "It is true that I am typing on a keyboard" and "I'm right that I'm typing on a keyboard" are making precisely the same truth claim.

    rendering even his claim both meaningless and valueless, he likely would say, "Amen, buy me a beer!"tim wood

    Uh, what? I don't see any flaw you've identified here.
  • T Clark
    13.7k
    I define relativism, here, as simply the attitude and belief that your views cannot bind me (except perhaps as supported by irresistible force), because I have my own that I hold are at least as valid.tim wood

    Here is a definition of "relativism" from a dictionary site - "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." That's not necessarily inconsistent with your definition, but I think yours misses an important emphasis - the lack of absolute standards.

    Nihilism (I define here): the belief and attitude that ultimately nothing matters, nothing has any ultimate or absolute value or significance.tim wood

    From a dictionary site - "The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless." That definition and yours match well.

    I don't much like either, as I suppose every right-thinking person doesn't.tim wood

    Hey, I resemble that remark.

    But how simple or difficult is it to conclusively refute them? By conclusive refutation I understand an argument in the presence of which we may judge any relativist or nihilist as simply vicious, and act accordinglytim wood

    First of all, refutation deals with demonstrating that a statement, theory, or belief is incorrect. Why would that lead to judging a relativist or nihilist as vicious? Incorrect is not the same as vicious. And what exactly does "act accordingly" mean in this context?

    Has philosophy ever conclusively refuted anything? It certainly can't deal with nihilism and relativism because these philosophies deal not with matters of fact, but with matters of human value. Nihilism seems goofy to me. I think it is unequivocally at odds with human nature. Relativism, on the other hand, I would almost say is self-evident, unless an omnipotent and omniscient god is assumed.

    Actually, I don't believe anything is self-evident. Still, I think belief in any kind of absolutism without the presence of God is hard to justify.
  • jkop
    891


    If you're interested in a detailed examination of relativist claims and examples of refutations, then I'd recommend Paul Boghossian's book: Fear of Knowledge; against relativism and constructivism (2006).

    https://www.amazon.com/Fear-Knowledge-Against-Relativism-Constructivism/dp/0199230412


    A perhaps more common kind of relativism is related to bullshit, which has been studied by Harry Frankfurt: On Bullshit (2005).

    https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=pd_sim_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0691122946&pd_rd_r=TC7F1S6JA9ZZHVWZ3M0K&pd_rd_w=UCu2R&pd_rd_wg=lYeSY&psc=1&refRID=TC7F1S6JA9ZZHVWZ3M0K
  • Thorongil
    3.2k
    Paul Boghossianjkop

    I'm not a huge fan of his, but he recently pulled off another delicious Sokal hoax: http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/

    Edit: Wrong Boghossian! I'll have to check Paul out now.
  • jkop
    891


    You might like Paul, that book is very well written. He also wrote an article about the original Sokal hoax in the 1990s which is available online here: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/boghossian/papers/bog_tls.html
  • BC
    13.5k
    The splendid jargonized pyrotechnic caricatures of postmodernism discussed in your references are apt demonstrations of what happens when people come to believe their own bullshit.

    Bullshit took off in the 1960s, in ever so many ways.

    tumblr_oqulred6vv1s4quuao1_540.png
    Google Ngram
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Further I do not know what truth is. Do you? If you think you do, please say here what you think truth is. — timw
    Ignorance of the truth does not entail its nonexistence. — thorongil

    NIce non sequitur. Let's try again. Do you know what truth is? If you think you do, say here what truth is.

    I'm not seeing any great difference between asserting that something is true and asserting that one is right. "It is true that I am typing on a keyboard" and "I'm right that I'm typing on a keyboard" are making precisely the same truth claim. — thorongil

    True and right do overlap in some usage, but they are not the same thing. Confusing the two crashes any discussion that refers to them. True is a property of propositions. Right I take to be a judgment derived from a set of beliefs. The proposition that you are typing is either true or false. My belief, attitude, and possibly practice concerning owning slaves is not true or false, but is instead either right or wrong.

    "...rendering even his claim both meaningless and valueless, he likely would say, 'Amen, buy me a beer!'"
    — tim wood

    Uh, what? I don't see any flaw you've identified here.

    The flaw is that you hold you've refuted nihilism by pointing out that the nihilist's claim, if nihilism holds, is meaningless. I suggest you think some more about that, in particular, how exactly does your refutation work?
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Consider a claim such as "it is illegal for two women to marry". It's true in some places and false in others. As such, the truth of "it is illegal for two women to marry" is relative. Does it then follow that there is no fact of the matter? Of course not. In some places it really is illegal, and in some places it really isn't. — michael

    Two problems here. One is the confusion between true and right. the second is simply confusing imprecise language with precise language. "It is illegal for two women to marry," seems like a proposition that ought to be either true or false. And indeed in informal usage it is taken as such, just as you have described. However, the sentence itself is inadequately qualified and absent the missing qualifications is actually meaningless with respect to the missing qualifications. What are the missing qualifications? For starters, just those you provide in your description; viz, that it's legal in some places and not in others. Add the qualification and you get propositions that are true (or false) and are not relative at all.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    First of all, refutation deals with demonstrating that a statement, theory, or belief is incorrect. Why would that lead to judging a relativist or nihilist as vicious? Incorrect is not the same as vicious. And what exactly does "act accordingly" mean in this context?

    Has philosophy ever conclusively refuted anything? It certainly can't deal with nihilism and relativism because these philosophies deal not with matters of fact, but with matters of human value. Nihilism seems goofy to me. I think it is unequivocally at odds with human nature. Relativism, on the other hand, I would almost say is self-evident, unless an omnipotent and omniscient god is assumed.
    — t clark

    Incorrect? Again confusion, this time between incorrect and wrong. I believe 2+2=5: I'm incorrect and wrong. I believe shiny brass idols are more powerful than silver idols. Wrong, but would you care to demonstrate how I am incorrect? By refutation I mean those persuasive arguments that drive both the relativist and the nihilist from their respective grounds. By vicious I mean a person who argues dishonestly. For example (and see the OP), if you meet someone who defends the practice of owning slaves and refute all of his arguments in favour, and he keeps arguing, then it's a mistake to yourself keep arguing. Depending on the circumstance, some other action may be appropriate. Arguing from an exploded position is essentially dishonest, and is called vicious reasoning.

    And philosophy has refuted all kinds of things; you just have in mind those things it hasn't resolved yet.

    As to relativism, I think we can both easily acknowledge there are relativistic beliefs and practices in the world. But apparently you're a relativist and I'm not. Let's try a test: enter here some substantive belief (not required to be yours) that you think you can defend as relativist, that I will try to show is not relativist, once properly understood.
  • Wayfarer
    22.3k
    I don't much like either [nihilism or relativism] as I suppose every right-thinking person doesn't. But how simple or difficult is it to conclusively refute them?tim wood

    It's impossible in our current cultural context. That is because no agreed set of values or qualitative norms exist against which to adjudicate such claims. It's relatively simple in the example of change for a purchase because it's a quantitative matter. Another factor is that one fundamental plank of liberalism is the fact that the individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. That actually developed out of the Christian and specifically Protestant understanding of the nature of the person. Now, however, the basis of the kind of sanctified ethos that was part and parcel of that theory of the person has been discarded, and with it any sense of the moral absolute. Now science has become the de facto arbiter of truth - but it deals in quantitative analyses, not qualitative judgement.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    And indeed in informal usage it is taken as such, just as you have described. However, the sentence itself is inadequately qualified and absent the missing qualifications is actually meaningless with respect to the missing qualifications. What are the missing qualifications? For starters, just those you provide in your description; viz, that it's legal in some places and not in others.tim wood

    It's not meaningless. You understand what "it is illegal for two women to marry" means (or at least I expect you to, being that you seem to understand English). It's just that further qualifications are needed for it to have a truth value. And that's exactly the point that the relativist makes. Certain kinds of propositions – e.g. "it is illegal for two women to marry", and for the moral relativist "it is immoral for two women to marry" – must be contextualised to a particular country or culture (or in the extreme case of subjectivism, the feelings or opinions of the individual) for them to be either true or false.

    Add the qualification and you get propositions that are true (or false) and are not relative at all.

    And the relativist would agree. If they say that the truth of moral claims is relative to one's culture then they will also say that when qualified to a particular culture some given moral claim is absolutely true (or false). The distinction between relativism and absolutism is one that only really applies to broad statements like "it is immoral for two women to marry" and "it is illegal for two women to marry", not usually to qualified statements like "it is immoral for two women to marry in Saudi Arabia" and "it is illegal for two women to marry in Saudi Arabia".
  • jkop
    891

    Boghossian takes on philosophically far more interesting relativists than the postmodernists. Nelson Goodman, for instance.

    Frankfurt invertigates the nature of bullshit, and does not even mention the word postmodernism, but he brings up, I think, a very interesting phenomenon where the relativist, in the assumed absence of truth, considers him/herself more sincere than those who belive in truth. Here's a description of it written by a reviewer of his book:

    when a person rejects the notion of being true to the facts and turns instead to an ideal of being true to their own substantial and determinate nature, then according to Frankfurt this sincerity is bullshit.Petter Naessan
  • mcdoodle
    1.1k
    If relativism holds, then you and I are both right (because each of us claims to be, QED). Anyone is right who claims to be right. If everyone is right, no one is. The notion of right loses its substancetim wood

    I think the difficulty with summarising 'relativism' that way is that it's a strawman. Obviously such a relativism is bollocks.

    But take the study of history. History can be studied, told and disputed from as many viewpoints as there are people in the world. The way we talk to each other about it, however, enables us to do this with as much science as can be brought into the arena. We agree certain standards that underpin our disagreements. The imperialist and the Marxist can inhabit the same common room or bar room and, for a start, accept certain 'facts' and certain criteria for 'facts'. They can also agree certain evidential standards for testimony and written records.

    If you start from that sort of point - what are our conversational or disputational norms? - then to me relativism make reasonable sense. For example, I've been reading about placebos and that's made me think, there is no non-relativistic way of studying the effect of pharmaceutical products on human beings, because there is no way that the effects of the beliefs of both the 'patients' and the medical practitioners can be discounted. All the same, we can arrive at reliable enough assessments of the effects of pharamaceuticals, as long as scientists and their employers are transparent with the information they have, because we have established norms that satisfy any thinking critic.

    Now, in the physical, chemical and biological arenas, maybe we can discount the effect of experimenters sufficiently that knowledge is in some sense 'absolute'. But if that were easy, Meillassoux wouldn't have had to tie himself up in knots (in my opinion) trying to demonstrate that to be the case. Even here, if you accept what Popper has to say, or something like it, we stand with only provisional knowledge, relative to an imagined future which might overturn our paradigms.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    I define relativism, here, as simply the attitude and belief that your views cannot bind me (except perhaps as supported by irresistible force), because I have my own that I hold are at least as valid. (An example, if any reader here needs one: you hold that all persons have equal standing, with equal justice for all, while I, on the other hand, believe that subjugation and exploitation of inferior persons - the many - for the benefit of the few - me - is right, correct, and appropriate.)

    Nihilism (I define here): the belief and attitude that ultimately nothing matters, nothing has any ultimate or absolute value or significance.
    tim wood

    I'm a relativist, but in that I'm not saying anything about anyone's views "binding" or "not binding" anyone. What I'm saying in that primarily is that facts (states of affairs a la ontology) are relative to other facts. For example, P is the case from reference point x, but ~P is the case from reference point y. P might be "A is to the left of B," for a simple, non-controversial example, and of course y is a reference point from which A is to the left of B, while x is a reference point from which B is to the left of A.

    That relativism certainly carries over to persons' views, their beliefs, the truth-values they assign to propositions and so on, but my concern is typically more one of ontology, in a general sense.

    I'm also a nihilist in the way that you're defining that, if "ultimate/absolute mattering/value/significance" is supposed to denote objective mattering, valuation or significance, since I believe those things are subjective, not objective. Again, I'm making an ontological statement in that. I'm simply stating that those are things that persons' brains do--brains care about things, assign value to them, assign significance to them. Objects in the world other than brains, or the "world itself" in some general way, does not assign mattering, valuations or significance to anything.

    So I'm a relativist and nihilist (I suppose), but I'm not denying that there are objective facts, and I'm not denying that things matter, have value, etc.--it's just that objective facts are relative to other objective facts, and mattering, valuing, etc. is (relative) to individuals.

    And no, there would be no effective way to refute that, because you'd be arguing something that is wrong about the way the world is. (Although of course, relatively, you believe that your alternate view is correct.)
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    If relativism holds, then you and I are both right (because each of us claims to be, QED).tim wood

    If by "right" you're referring to truth values (namely, assigning "T" to some proposition), in my view truth values are subjective judgments that individuals make about the relations of propositions to other things. It's a category error to try to "make that" something other than a subjective judgment about the relation in question.

    When you realize that this is what truth values refer to (under my view, at least), then it's far less controversial that person A assigns "T" to P and person B assigns "F" to P. They're simply making different judgments about the relation of the proposition in question. And there's nothing to talk about other than the judgment that an individual person makes there. The idea of there being a "right" (or "wrong") judgment "beyond that somehow" is nonsensical.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    The claim that all truth is relative is itself asserted absolutely.Thorongil

    It's not though. If I say, "'All truth is relative' is true," as a relativist, and as a truth-value subjectivist, I'm not saying that "'All truth is relative' is true" is anything but relatively, subjectively true to me--I'm reporting my judgment about that proposition to you. Certainly other people can and do assign "false" to that statement instead. And assigning "true" and "false" to it are nothing other than judgments that we make as individuals. I'd not be claiming that the "is true" part of "'All truth is relative' is true" is something other than a judgment that an individual makes.

    Often what's happening there is that the truth-value non-relativist is reading their non-relativistic framework into the statement; they're not parsing it under whatever the relativist's notion of truth is.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Further I do not know what truth is. Do you? If you think you do, please say here what you think truth is.tim wood

    I know, and I've stated it here on this board and the previous board at least a few times:

    ‘P’ is true for S iff S judges ‘P’ to have relation R to either S’s phenomenal P, and/or S’s stock of previously adjudged true propositions, depending on the relation R. Relation R is whatever truth theory relation S feels is the appropriate one(s)—correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatic, etc.

    So in other words, what it is for some proposition, 'P' (quotation marks denoting the proposition literally as a sentence), to be true to some individual, some S, is for the proposition to have the relation R to S's phenomenal P (their phenomenal perception etc. of some state of affairs) or their stock of previously adjudged true propositions, in S's judgment.

    That's all that truth value is.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Your argument against nihilism suffers worse flaws. If the nihilist's claim that nothing has any meaning or value is true, rendering even his claim both meaningless and valueless, he likely would say, "Amen, buy me a beer!"tim wood

    The issue is that nothing has objective meaning, value, etc. It's not that there is no subjective meaning, value, etc. Meaning and value are things that individual persons do--they're basically ways that brains work. There's no meaning and value outside of that.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    Is it then, the view of the several relativists here that, notwithstanding their private views, cannibalism, genocide, exposing infants, slavery, pedophilia (for a selection) are all ok? Maybe not here, of course, but in those places where folks go for those things? It seems pretty outrageous, but the consequence of not having any refutation for relativism is that nothing is wrong, except as we say it is, and have the power to impose what we say. The cry 'it's all relative!" would stand as absolute defense against any charge.

    Granted, if you aspire to the moral rectitude of a shark or praying mantis, or the values of a jelly fish, you might well discount or ignore values the rest of us find important. And in the case of defective or criminal persons, force is often the only option. But is there no commonality among otherwise healthy people that itself puts the lie to relativism?

    I think of skepticism, relativism, nihilism as regressive steps. Each has its reasonable aspect or form. For examples, a healthy skepticism; the idea of relative values as a useful concept; and, that some things that seem meaningful or valuable are neither. It would seem, then, that in a limited existential form each has a good aspect. Clearly it is when they're taken as absolute and categorical they become toxic. And I think it's reason itself that makes manifest their toxicity.

    Reason, that is, in Descartes cogito, that seems immune to skepticism. In Kant's categorical imperative, which seems as un-relative as arithmetic. And in Heidegger's Sorge - Care. But these seem too general, and in any case too remote.

    So I answer my own question this way: the refutation of these two (or three, including skepticism) lies in persuasive and well-reasoned argument, not always easy to construct. And once the argument is made, with all allowances for problems in communication, if not effective, then force may be the only recourse.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    It seems pretty outrageous, but the consequence of not having any refutation for relativism is that nothing is wrong, except as we say it is, and have the power to impose what we say.tim wood

    And nothing is illegal, except as the legislature says it is, and has the power to impose what it says.

    Is this outrageous, or is it common sense?

    It seems to me that you've moved away from taking issue with relativism and have moved on to taking issue specifically with moral relativism?

    The cry 'it's all relative!" would stand as absolute defense against any charge.

    Because that works so well in a court of law.
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    ‘P’ is true for S iff S judges ‘P’ to have relation R to either S’s phenomenal P, and/or S’s stock of previously adjudged true propositions, depending on the relation R. Relation R is whatever truth theory relation S feels is the appropriate one(s)—correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatic, etc.

    So in other words, what it is for some proposition, 'P' (quotation marks denoting the proposition literally as a sentence), to be true to some individual, some S, is for the proposition to have the relation R to S's phenomenal P (their phenomenal perception etc. of some state of affairs) or their stock of previously adjudged true propositions, in S's judgment.
    — terrapin station

    I've thought about truth. The best I could do is acknowledge that in one sense, truth is simply the quality that a true statement has that makes it true. But this is mere grammar and leaves the question if there isn't anything more to it. And if you read your post closely, you've said almost nothing about truth.

    In another thread, gurugeorge wrote this, that I reproduce here because in my opinion it is one those rare forum posts that make the whole thing worthwhile:
    The general etymology seems to be related to "faith, faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty; veracity, quality of being true; pledge, covenant," from Germanic abstract noun *treuwitho, from Proto-Germanic treuwaz "having or characterized by good faith". A solid oak would be something like a metaphor for someone who is trustworthy.

    Not that etymology is some magic key, just that it shows something like the genealogy of a concept, and in this case it's related to trustworthiness Truth is that which you can rely on.

    Which is exactly how it is, more or less. You can still be betrayed by a loyal friend, for any number of reasons, but generally loyal friends are loyal friends, and you can rely on them, lean on them. Likewise, at an epistemological level, we know we are fallible, we can sometimes be mistaken when we were ever so sure; but we also know that lots of things about which we are ever so sure are reliable.

    This is obviously also related to the pragmatic insight: truth is a guide to action. Propositions set up in us expectations as to how the world is likely to behave in response to our actions. These are our "beliefs" (again, "belief" is etymologically related to faith too).

    But I think it's important to note that our beliefs are not knowledge as such, knowledge as such is the picture painted for us by the words, which we can believe or not - these propositions we secondarily call "beliefs" too, but that's been the source of a lot of confusion in philosophy.

    The primary sense is all about trust in expectations, which are set up by propositions which are then only secondarily called "beliefs." But if you take that reification seriously, then you have the futile search for things "in the head" ("in the mind") that have a similar structure to the structure of propositions.

    We do have things in the head, but they're expectations that are triggered by the propositions, which are objective artifacts in the world (which is why the things going on in the head can vary from person to person and time to time, while the propositional structure that triggers them is invariant, and depends on objective rules, standing social habits, etc.).
    — gurugeorge

    "Truth is that which you can rely on"! Do you join me in thinking gurugeorge has the last word on truth? Or do you have something different?
  • tim wood
    9.2k
    And nothing is illegal, except as the legislature says it is, and has the power to impose what it says.

    Is this outrageous, or is it common sense?
    — michael

    Practical sense, seen through the filter of common sense. In the context of this thread, nonsense.
  • Michael
    15.4k
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you accept that things are illegal only if some relevant body of people says it is, that different bodies will say different things, and so that something can be illegal in one place but not in another?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    And if you read your post closely, you've said almost nothing about truth.tim wood

    Nonsense. I explained exactly what it is. Maybe it's that you didn't understand what I wrote?
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    Is it then, the view of the several relativists here that, notwithstanding their private views, cannibalism, genocide, exposing infants, slavery, pedophilia (for a selection) are all ok?tim wood

    That question doesn't make sense, because whether something is okay or not is a matter of someone's "private" or personal views. "Is this okay aside from anyone's personal views" is a category error.

    but the consequence of not having any refutation for relativism is that nothing is wrong, except as we say it is, and have the power to impose what we say.

    And that's indeed a fact. What is is for something to be wrong is for people to feel that it's wrong. And in some situations people have the power to impose behavioral limitations based on those feelings.

    But is there no commonality among otherwise healthy people that itself puts the lie to relativism?

    There are certainly more or less common views, and when there's some significant consensus about a view, the people who hold that view can declare themselves (mentally) "healthy" for holding that view if they like, but it's just a common view . . . that doesn't make them objectively correct for their agreement. Of course, they're not objectively incorrect, either. Since there is no objectively correct or incorrect for this stuff. There are ways that people feel about things, and we interact and makes rules and such based on that.

    the refutation of these two (or three, including skepticism) lies in persuasive and well-reasoned argument,

    Well-reasoned in whose assessment?
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.