I would stress ultimate here. A nihilist perhaps reasons (1) that he will die and (2) the human species will become extinct. My personal death argues that all value is temporary. I act now in terms of a finite future, which is to say in terms of hopes and fears that do not extend indefinitely into the future. I may fantasize that I can contribute to science, art, or philosophy for instance in a way that gives me a sort of immortality. I can "crystallize" my personality in some work that will survive me. I "upload" my best self or spiritual fingerprint by adding this work (which hopefully is truly great and maintained in the minds of those who survive me), and I can enjoy this notion while still alive. I can comfort myself that death will not be as absolute as it might otherwise be. But (2) or the eventual extinction the species threatens even this comfort. It seems that even Newton, Shakespeare, and Plato will be erased --will become as if they had never been. From this perspective everything is radically temporary. Nothing is ultimately meaningful. Everything is finally empty or rather emptied or erased. To me this is both terrible and beautiful. This realization (or rather belief/myth) creates a "space" outside of everything finite. Life becomes a vivid dream. The only absolute is the impossibility of any other absolute. — Visit0r
But (2) or the eventual extinction the species threatens even this comfort. It seems that even Newton, Shakespeare, and Plato will be erased --will become as if they had never been. From this perspective everything is radically temporary. Nothing is ultimately meaningful. Everything is finally empty or rather emptied or erased. To me this is both terrible and beautiful. This realization (or rather belief/myth) creates a "space" outside of everything finite. Life becomes a vivid dream. The only absolute is the impossibility of any other absolute. — visit0r
Nothing in reality is immune from relativism unless you assume the existence of objective reality, which I don't. I think the concept of objective reality can be useful and productive in some situations. On the other hand, it can lead us not to recognize the extent to which human interactions influence our view of truth.
The thought that objective reality does not, might not, or need not exist is not a new or radical one. If its existence is a fixed absolute, then there is no need to continue this conversation. — T Clark
Only a few things are better than talking with one who knows! Just minutes ago I post that I don't really know what reality is, and you know just enough about it to venture out on the ice where I'm afraid you've fallen through. Perhaps you'll say what reality is, and if not, then perhaps you can make clear whether it's reality that falls under relativism, or the things in reality - but how can you do that unless you already know what reality is?
Want to give it a try? — tim wood
Facts are claims made with great certitude from a relative perspective. — Rich
Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.
As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts. — Terrapin Station
I've been going through a bunch of posts which ask what firm base relativists nail their facts to. I have my answer ready, but you've beaten me to the punch. It's consensus. Even if you believe there is some final, definitive, concrete ground of being, e.g. objective reality, which I don't, the only thing we have to work with on a day to day basis is agreement among them what knows. Consensus. — T Clark
Just fyi for anyone reading my comments in this thread (or elsewhere). I don't use "facts" in that sense. I only use "facts" in the "states of affairs" sense.
As a realist, facts in no way depend on there being humans or persons. If no life existed, the world would still be overflowing with facts. — Terrapin Station
Propositions. — Terrapin Station
Nothing in reality is immune from relativism unless you assume the existence of objective reality, — T Clark
If one judges a proposition to correctly describe facts, it's a true proposition.
If one judges a proposition to incorrectly describe facts, it's a false proposition. — Terrapin Station
Mind-independently? That's a nonsensical idea.
I'm having that same discussion in a other thread at the moment, too. — Terrapin Station
Objectively, "There are two balls in that bag" is just some pixels activated on a monitor (or mobile device screen or whatever the case may be). — Terrapin Station
The issue is that objectively there's no "accurately describing" or not of a proposition. It's a matter of an individual judging whether the proposition matches. — Terrapin Station
It sounds like we have completely different ontologies. If I weren't a realist then yeah, I'd need some other conception of facts. I'm just a garden variety realist though — Terrapin Station
There is something real out there but whatever it is under constant flux. — Rich
Well you seem to be conflating propositions and what propositions are about (facts) at this point. — Terrapin Station
No, you are. When I talk about the fact that there are two balls in the bag you respond by saying that the proposition "there are two balls in the bag" is just pixels. — Michael
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.