This seems more of a definition of non-anthropocentrism. Neither objectivism nor relativism hinges on humans (anthropocentic) or perceptions (idealist).Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. — Cadet John Kervensley
For example, is the sum of 3 and 5 equal to 8, or is that just a property of our universe? Mathemaical 'truths' are often held as objective, but proving that is another thing.According to this view, there are facts that are true regardless of who examines them or under what circumstances.
The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else).For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action.
Subjective implies a perceiving subject. A relational view does not require a subject. A subject is only required for the view (the map), but not the territory. A rock can get wet without a human to notice it. The water exists relative to the rock.relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context,
The 3+5 thing borders on objective truth. Most all of the rest you mention seems to be opinion, which has nothing to do with truth. If there are for instance objective morals, then opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant to that truth.truth depends on each person's viewpoint?
Chaos seem to only result from pushing one's opinion onto those that don't share it.Does relativism allow for greater respect for differences, or does it lead to moral chaos?
Not at all since no counterexample can be shown. To do that, one would have to demonstrate an objective truth. Plenty try, but all seem to beg their opinion.And is objectivism too rigid to accommodate human diversity?
How do you define the truth? — MoK
relativism encourages us to acknowledge the plurality of perspectives and accept that truth may be shaped by our experiences and contexts. — Cadet John Kervensley
It may be problematic to see relativism or objectivitism as an ultimate 'truth'. That is because they are both perspectives. Saying that may amount to relativism in some respects. However, relativism may go too far in reducing all matters of 'truth' to the subjective, which may rule out the shared and intersubjective elements are missed. This can apply to most aspects of 'truth', including morality. Both the subjective and objective matter in thinking about the construction of 'truth and need to be juggled effectively. — Jack Cummins
For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action.The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else). — noAxioms
Objectivism asserts that truth exists independently of human beliefs, emotions, or perceptions. — Cadet John Kervensley
And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative. — Cadet John Kervensley
Space is a necessary a priori representation that underlies all outer intuitions. One can never forge a representation of the absence of space, though one can quite well think that no things are to be met within it. It must therefore be regarded as the condition of the possibility of appearances, and not as a determination dependent upon them, and it is an a priori representation that necessarily underlies outer appearances...
...We dispute all claim of time to absolute reality [absolute Realität], namely where it would attach to things absolutely as a condition or property even without regard to the form of our sensible intuition. Such properties, which pertain to things in themselves, can also never be given to us through the senses. Therefore herein lies the transcendental ideality of time, according to which, if one abstracts from the subjective condition of our sensible intuition, it is nothing at all, and can be considered neither as subsisting nor as inhering in the objects in themselves (without their relation to our intuition). — Immanuel Kant - Critique of Pure Reason
In... the Critique of Pure Reason [Kant] wrote:
If one were to entertain the slightest doubt that space and time did not relate to the Ding an sich but merely to its relationship to sensuous reality, I cannot see how one can possibly affect to know, a priori and in advance of any empirical knowledge of things, i.e. before they are set before us, how we shall have to visualize them as we do in the case of space and time.
What a biologist familiar with the facts of evolution would regard as the obvious answer to Kant's question was, at that time, beyond the scope of the greatest of thinkers. The simple answer is that the system of sense organs and nerves that enables living things to survive and orientate themselves in the outer world has evolved phylogenetically through confrontation with an adaptation to that form of reality which we experience as phenomenal space. This system thus exists a priori to the extent that it is present before the individual experiences anything, and must be present if experience is to be possible. But its function is also historically evolved and in this respect not a priori. — Konrad Lorenz - Behind the Mirror
And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... :roll:). This is incoherent, of course, and not a viable, or reasonable, alternative to 'objective truth' (so the OP's poll is a false choice).And Relativism?
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective and dependent on context, cultural beliefs, and individual perspectives. What is true for one person or culture might not be true for another. — Cadet John Kervensley
This doesn't follow since "right and wrong" are use-claims (i.e. evaluations, selections, preferences (re: plurality)) and not truth-claims (i.e. propositions (re: objectivity)) – not to be confused with "relativism", pluralism is objective (i.e. many different paths through / maps of the same terrain, or many different perspectives on / aspects of the same thing). Btw, there are reasonable conceptions of 'objective morality' such as (e.g.) moral naturalism¹.For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative.
For instance, in matters of morality, what is considered right or wrong can vary depending on cultural or historical contexts, reinforcing the idea that truth is relative.
It has to come as a surprise to the new student of Aristotle to learn that time and space for Aristotle exist in nature only fundamentally. Formally and actually time and space exist as the action of thought completes nature by creating in memory a series or network of relations which constitute the experience of time and space. Thus the “continuum of space and time” belongs neither to the order of being as it exists independently of the human mind nor to the order of what exists only as a consequence of human thinking, but exists rather objectively* as one of the most intimate comminglings of mind and nature in the constitution of experience.
Let us begin with time, that ever mysterious “entity” in which we live out our lives. What is time? How does time exist? According to Aristotle, apart from any finite mind, there is in nature only motion and change and the finite endurance of individuals sustained by their various interactions, as we shortly consider in more detail.
Enter mind or consciousness. Now some object changes its position or “moves in space”, and the mind remembers where the local motion began, sees the course of the movement, and notes where it terminates: the rabbit, for example, came out of that hole and ran behind that tree, where it is “now” hidden. The motion was not a “thing”; the rabbit is the “thing”. The motion exists nowhere apart from the rabbit’s actions – nowhere, that is, except in the memory of the perceiver which preserves as a continuous whole the transitory movement of the rabbit from its hole (the “before”) to the tree (the “after”).
John Deely - Four Ages of Understanding
* It's worth noting that Deely uses "objective" according to its meaning in classical metaphysics, derived from "objects," the things experienced in the umwelt. The term "objective" morphing into meaning something like "mind-independent" or "noumenal" being fairly unhelpful, and at the very least very far from its original meaning, similar to how "substance" for Descartes has become something entirely different. It's almost like A Canticle For Leibowitz, where an apocalypse (or in this case the Reformation) had people using the terminology of science with no real understanding of the system it was created for.
In contrast, relativism claims that truth is subjective — Cadet John Kervensley
subjective, or relative — Jack Cummins
While objectivism and subjectivism clash — ToothyMaw
For example, the laws of physics or mathematical truths are often cited as examples of objectivism in action. — Cadet John Kervensley
I never found Kant's arguments here particularly convincing. — Count Timothy von Icarus
What things are outside of all interaction with anything else is not only epistemically inaccessible, but also makes no difference to the rest of the world. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Now some object changes its position or “moves in space”, and the mind remembers where the local motion began, sees the course of the movement, and notes where it terminates: the rabbit, for example, came out of that hole and ran behind that tree, where it is “now” hidden. The motion was not a “thing”; the rabbit is the “thing”.
I do not understand why he is frequently credited like this with the idea that our sense organs/minds shape how we experience the world. This is a very old intuition. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The laws of physics are not necessarily the same from one universe to the next, so that would be an example of relativism (or relational, as I tend to use the word, to distinguish it from Einstein's relativity theory, which is something else). — noAxioms
The problem with asserting a completely relativistic notion of truth is that such an assertion is straightforwardly self-refuting. Such a claim will itself only be "true" relative to some social context, "language game," etc. — Count Timothy von Icarus
And therefore if relativism is true for some and not others, then it is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative ... "truth is subjective" is subjective ... — 180 Proof
For example, is the sum of 3 and 5 equal to 8, or is that just a property of our universe? Mathemaical 'truths' are often held as objective, but proving that is another thing. — noAxioms
Of course; but I didn't claim or imply otherwise. There are virtuous circles and vicious circles, and the latter are self-refuting ones (e.g. OP's definition of "relativism").Not all self-reference is self-contradictory. — T Clark
Well maybe, TC, but the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not metaphysics.Relativism and objectivism are metaphysical positions.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Which position do you take in the debate between relativism and objectivism, and why? How does this debate influence your own conception of truth and reality? — Cadet John Kervensley
I'm with Kant on this. A broader perspective recognizes the nature and extent of a priori knowledge applies to more than just space and time. Perception of color begins in the eye itself and grows to include a big piece of real estate in the brain. Babies are instinctively attracted to human voices and faces before they have had a chance to learn to make the categorization. There is also strong evidence that infants in the first months of life have inherent moral and numerical senses. If you have any interest in this subject, I recommend Konrad Lorenz's "Kant's Doctrine of the A Priori in the Light of Contemporary Biology." Its much shorter than the book I referenced. Here's a link.
https://archive.org/details/KantsDoctrineOfTheAPrioriInTheLightOfContemporaryBiologyKonradLorenz
There is evidence that perception of motion is also affected by instinctive, genetic mechanisms in the nervous system. It's not learned after birth.
I'm confused. Given this understanding, I don't see why you reject the position I'm describing.
there is a relationship between relativism and subjectivity — Jack Cummins
you can't be, strictly speaking, a Kantian and claim that neuroscience, evolutionary biology, and the like are telling you things about the causes of the structure of experience. For Kant, the natural sciences can only ever tell you about the world of phenomenal awareness, not what lies prior to it. — Count Timothy von Icarus
So I see the position you are advocating as:
A. Dropping core elements of Kant's thought;
B. Largely revolving around ideas that are neither unique to Kant nor new with him. — Count Timothy von Icarus
the claim that it is impossible to say that space and time exist fundamentally (but not actually) in nature — Count Timothy von Icarus
It's both for many animals. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The genes of a fern or flower will never produce a functioning eye regardless of the environment. — Count Timothy von Icarus
The mind does not varry between individuals the way your initial post implies, which is why for Kant we can discover laws of nature that are universally applicable for all observers across phenomenal awareness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
This firewall needs to be in place so that he can hide "free will ," as he understood it, in the noumenal realm, while maintaining the phenomenal world is rigidly deterministic (see the end of the Prolegomena). — Count Timothy von Icarus
or that it is impossible to apply the findings of neuroscience, genetics, etc. to anything outside that which lies inside phenomenal awareness. — Count Timothy von Icarus
Doesn't seem valid. Relativism doesn't apply necessarily to truth. Ontology or morality could be relative, but truth is often not considered relative. 3+5=8 seems to be an objective truth, and 'there are no unicorns', while worded in an objective way, is arguably a relational assessment. 'Relativism is true' might refer to moral relativism, which could arguably stand as an objective truth, although it would seem that if it was true, it would only be a property of this universe or that which created both the universe and said morals. A deity defining what is wrong and right is a relation. Objective morals would be something the deity would have to adhere to, rather than something the deity could dictate.And therefore if relativism is true, then it is true for some and not others, which is self-refuting as a claim (i.e. relativism is relative :roll:). This is incoherent, of course, and not a viable, or reasonable, alternative to 'objective truth' (so the OP's poll is a false choice). — 180 Proof
That he does (puts it in opposition to a perspective). We seem to have lost the OP, who has not in any way tended his own topic.the OP posits epistemological positions (on "truth"), not any metaphysics — 180 Proof
Not sure what is being asked, especially since there isn't any entity necessarily doing any evaluation. For instance, in another universe, the cosmological constant might be different, which I suppose can be compared to (greater/less than relation) to each other. In yet another universe, there is no meaningful thing that could be considered a cosmological constant.I'm no physicist, or mathematician, but this sounds suspect. If a fact - like the laws of physics - in one universe is not the same as in another universe, wouldn't there have to be some independent reference frame against which the two can be compared to evaluate them relationally? — ToothyMaw
Newton's laws are pretty basic and don't so much involve things like constants, other than fundamentals like there being 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Other universes could have any values for either of these, and dimensions that are neither spatial nor temporal. Newton's laws wouldn't work in any of those.If there were something similar to Newton's laws in both
It has multiple definitions. If it always meant 'everything there is' (a global and very objective definition), then 1) the concept of a multiverse would be meaningless, and 2), there are many definitions of 'what is', including relational ones.I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "relativism" here. "Universe" means everything. — T Clark
A very finite scope in fact. Sufficiently distant things are no more part of that scope than is a unicorn on Earth.We only have access to this scope
I'm using 'objective' in a way that isn't the opposite of 'subjective', but rather as opposed to 'relative'. Objective truths are not a matter of consensus, which is perhaps opinion or some sort of empirical conclusion, but actual truth seems not to depend on proof or even anything being aware of it.Yes, if there is no objective justification ("proof") then there won't be (an objective) consensus on whether it is true or not, rendering such truth subjective. — Tarskian
actual truth seems not to depend on proof or even anything being aware of it. — noAxioms
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.