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. — tim wood
An ideology that is held to be above question can justify the most barbarous acts. — Srap Tasmaner
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. — tim wood
"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
Agreed (with some minor reservations). Where are you going, here?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? — michael
Agreed (with some minor reservations). Where are you going, here? — tim wood
One thing I find curious is the near universal acceptance of mathematics.
You can, of course, fake data, misrepresent data, tendentiously interpret data, and so on, and you can accuse someone you disagree with of the same, but there's no room for someone to say baldly, "In my view, 3 is greater than 4." — Srap Tasmaner
Unless you're curious that there's near universal acceptance of the definitions of terms? — Michael
And just what are a relativist's criteria if not his or her own opinion? — tim wood
Um, yeah. Math alone is treated as objective, as objectively true, by all parties to all arguments. — Srap Tasmaner
But if an argument reaches a point where it's just a question of whether 4 is greater than 3, it's over. — Srap Tasmaner
One thing I find curious is the near universal acceptance of mathematics.
You can, of course, fake data, misrepresent data, tendentiously interpret data, and so on, and you can accuse someone you disagree with of the same, but there's no room for someone to say baldly, "In my view, 3 is greater than 4." — Srap Tasmaner
And just what are a relativist's criteria if not his or her own opinion? I trust all of us can make compelling argument against the practices listed above. But our relativist says, "Well, that's just your opinion." There seems but three ways to go: 1) adduce a general refutation, 2) adduce specific refutations, 3) if reason fails, then resort to force. The best I can think of with option one is to show that relativism can lead to absurdity - but when was that ever an effective practical argument? — tim wood
True and truth are not the same thing. — tim wood
I am getting a little tired of this misrepresentation of the relativist position. Here's a definition I used in a previous post on this thread - "the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute."
In relation to culture, society, or historical context - not my opinion. To oversimplify - society defines and enforces moral values. — T Clark
It's not a strawman applied to me, and I disagree with framing morality as something cultural. Cultures do not think. They don't have views about conduct. Individuals do. — Terrapin Station
I don't like the social/cultural emphasis of that.
We can certainly say that relative to one society something is legal whereas relative to another society it's not, and so on, but the reason for that is the individuals in that society and the way they're interacting. Morals (and other things) and ultimately relative to individuals. — Terrapin Station
I described a philosophical approach - "The doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute." Is that relativism? If not, what is it? It is clearly not absolutism. — T Clark
I was just saying that as a relativist myself, I don't like the emphasis on culture/society in that approach. I think it stresses norms/conformity (within cultures) too much and devalues individuals, when cultures/society are just collections of individuals and their interactions, their views, etc. — Terrapin Station
4 is greater than 3 by definition, not mathematics. — T Clark
That disagreement is socialized out of them. — Terrapin Station
it's simply a factor of how humans (and perhaps persons in general--it might not be limited to humans) tend to think about relations on the most abstract level. — Terrapin Station
Look at the way you guys are arguing over the definition of "relativism," and compare that to your behavior when it comes to math. Suppose you were having this argument over dinner and then split the check. It might take a few tries, but you would agree on an answer within minutes, after arguing for hours about the definition of a single word. — Srap Tasmaner
"Nothing in the world—or out of it!—can possibly be conceived that could be called ‘good’ without qualification except a GOOD WILL."
The proof lies within the concept itself. And the same for reasonableness. Of course reasonableness itself is not prescriptive; the process is to judge the argument, and then the content of the argument. But both the good will and reasonableness have the special quality they can self-prove without becoming absurd. — tim wood
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.