Relativism

#1

@Werbenja I’m actually curious. What’s your argument for this?

Something to think about
Thread For Philosophical Discussion
#2

@RMGnoob Since you made the first claim, don’t you bear a little burden of proof? One could take @Werbenja’s comment as the challenge: “please prove this claim.”

In general, it is harder to prove a negative (“it is impossible”) and without some careful clarification I believe your assertion (“it is impossible to actually live as a relativist”) falls flat pretty quickly.

For example, when is it impossible to actually live as a relativist? Always? One may never, for any period of time, actually live as a relativist? There are no actions which are consistent with relativism?

My understanding of relativism is that truth and value claims are regarded as conditional rather than absolute (being conditioned upon their context). If this is so, won’t most actions which are consistent with absolutism also be consistent with relativism? In that case, with the possible exception of making absolute truth claims, won’t most of life lived as an absolutist also be consistent with a relativistic worldview?

I am not a relativist. But I’d rather see you prove your assertion than him his. :slight_smile:

#3

I didn’t want to derail that other thread about hacking any more than absolutely necessary and my primary concern was getting Werbenja’s definition of relativism so that it would facilitate the debate by having us both on the same page right off the bat.

That sounds an awful lot like Descartes’ use of the doubt, in the sense of discarding any previously taken for granted “absolute truths” to put the entirety of reality into a state of indetermination.

Caveat being that Descartes explicitly stated that the doubt was a tool in his research, not an actual way of life, and that his endgame goal was to find new, rationally proven absolute rules (at least that’s what I remember from my philosophy classes half a dozen years ago).

Living completely as a relativist would mean letting events and other people’s decisions shape the world around you and completely relinquish your ability to take any decisions. That only works as a way of life as long as you have other people who are not relativists and who are doing everything in your stead, it doesn’t work as a lifestyle on its own.

I would also argue that claiming you are not following any absolute rules and actually trying to live without any absolute rules are two completely different things.

#4

I will defer my response until we have received @Werbenja’s definition of relativism, if he should elect to provide it.

#5

So, I’m here.

With my comment, I only meant that I do not believe in absolute truth. I’m definitely not well versed in philosophy and whatnot to give you a textbook definition of relativism nor to deny any instance of absolutism. I don’t know enough, all I know is what I’ve thought about and talked with other people. But this discussion seems interesting, let’s run with it.

To claim that something is absolutely true, or “real” as some people put it, is to underestimate the complexity of other people around you that may disagree. After all, your experiences are subject to your five senses.

Now, of course there some assertions that the entire human race would agree upon. Like “gravity exists”. As far as I know, we all feel this force. But is it hard to imagine that one person could simply say that they do not feel it? If he/she/it doesn’t feel it, for him/her it is not true. Does it mean that, because 7 billion other people say it’s true and one person say it is not, the lone person is wrong?

We don’t even have to go as far as to take gravity as the primary example, these very words I’m writing serve as one. When I created my account on these forums, I assumed that everyone I would talk to here understand english and that my words have preconceived meaning. But it’s not absolutely true that my words have meaning, they have meaning to me (and I hope they have to you aswell).

To be an absolutist, it would be necessary to define reality. And that is a task that mind can’t even begin to grasp, even less complete. So I’m left with relativism. Got any better options? :P``

Yeah, but you’re excluding the very thing that separates relativists and absolutists, in my view. And what a separation it is.

Could you expand on that? Because I have always seen this the other way around: as a relativist, your beliefs depend on how your interact with the world around you. And what is a human but the collection of its beliefs? Nothing is going to happen to you you if you do nothing.

Again, I hope you get my points, but maybe they’re just gibberish. It would be much easier for me this conversation was in my mother language.

Now, if you guys wanna talk about relativity, I can be much more useful.

#6

No. That is demonstrably false.

Say “I don’t feel like gravity exists”, then jump off a window. See if that works.

Deconstructing social constructs and scientific consensuses isn’t the same as proving them wrong.

You don’t need to be an absolutist, you just need to accept that you weren’t born with godlike omniscience and that you need to make your own choices to grow up as a human being.

That’s more or less what I’m suggesting based on my memories of Descartes, except I also put another phase after that, where you use all the data gathered through your relativist mindset to formulate your own theory of the world and live by it.

#7

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

Personally, I prefer to draw a distinction between moral relativism (good/bad, right/wrong) and radical skepticism (nothing at all can be known with perfect certainty), but they are often used interchangeably. It appears that @Werbenja is in the latter camp. I am in neither.

Either way, living as a relativist seems attainable. One acts in a manner consistent with the context that gives rise to one’s convictions, while accepting that ones convictions may be incorrect. The absolutist typically does this as well, not because truth is relative, but because he has a bit of humility that his convictions/beliefs may not perfectly reflect those absolute truths. This is why I said that “living as” a relativist or an absolutist are not that different, aside from some very specific activities (the discussion of philosophy being one :wink: )

I … don’t understand at all. Why would that be? Having skepticism about yourself or reality does not prohibit one from acting according to uncertain beliefs. How does having imperfect knowledge or contextual truth result in choosing to “completely relinquish your ability to take any decisions”?

Now the problem, from a relativistic perspective, is that we may only observe from within the context of our own perception. Some relativists assert that our perception also creates our reality. In which case one must also consider the possibility that @Werbenja has jumped off a window and floated into space. He may in fact be typing from his levitated position right now, asserting that he is floating as we speak, and we will never know because our deeply held beliefs prevent us from perceiving it (there is no spoon, and all that). Or for that matter, one of us could in our next post claim to be floating, but you will not believe it anyway.

I think overall I agree with your idea that Cartesian doubt is very similar to a working philosophy of relativism. In the end, one makes the best decisions one can with the information one has.

I have a feeling this is not going to be a very lively debate.

#8

What will a relativist do? O.o

#9

finally the forums niveau is back…

#10

Spot on, @Stupidity. I should have been more clear in my first post. I would even say that, given all that, “reality” loses its meaning.

The worst part of being a “relativist” (I never called myself that, but I guess I more or less am one, oh well) is that, sometimes, I think it’s useless to argue with anyone about anything. Everyone has their own perceptions and nothing I can say will convince them, as I don’t see things the way they see. Nevertheless, conversing is one of my favorites, if not my favorite thing to do. Seeing how different people can arrive to different conclusions is magnificent and quite logical once you consider each person has their own “reality”.

Pretty much go on with his life and let you live yours as you please, unlike some absolutists that impose their views on others.

We do what we must because we can.

#11

I’ve been waiting all day for @Trofimowen. This post seems like his kind of jam.

Or jelly. Or whatever. Maybe peanut butter.

Here’s the thing @Werbenja. The more certain you are about relativism, the less of a relativist you are. But if you do not believe absolutely in your relativistic philosophy, perhaps you should keep investigating?

It feels rather like apathy or laziness to not search for truth, whatever one’s assumptions may be. IMO, it does not follow from skepticism to simply ignore the possibility of Truth (capital T intended). That comes more from carelessness or defeat than doubt.

#12

I don’t agree. I firmly believe that there’s no absolute truth. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone prove it? Hardly. But I don’t care if other people think there is such a thing as an absolute truth, as a relativist, I know that it can exist for them. If someone comes to me and say “I have found an absolute truth”, I will say “sure, in your perception, it’s absolute”, as contradictory that may sound.

It depends on your level of skepticism. If you’re skeptical about anything being true…

The more I think about it, the more I see Relativism and Absolutism as two exclusive postulates. You can take one or the other and try to explain everything around. Relativism is more boring (boringer?), but also more pacifist. Absolutism is more intense and can cause people to destroy themselves.

I doubt @Trofimowen will come.

#13

All philosophies are flawed in some way.
My evidence for this claim is that there is a criticism section for every page on a type of philosophy on Wikipedia.
Therefore philosophy is a bunch of BS made by people with punchable faces to make their faces more punchable.

#14

Only because any possible argument i would have made, RMG already clearly constructed it, and much better than i would have been able to.

#15

Yeah, that’s more or less what I was expecting out of a philosophy debate: realizing that the definition I intuitively came up with for a given term was in fact not correct.

With the added bonus that the whole discussion isn’t in my mother tongue to begin with.

If there’s one thread on the forums where I’m bound to make a fool out of myself, it’s this one. :grinning:

If one truly believe there’s no absolute truth, isn’t that the logical outcome? If one can’t formulate one’s own rules and principles to follow and believes in pure context, aren’t they bound to adopt the rules and principles of whatever environment they happen to live in at the moment?

Sounds like an awfully convenient way to justify acting like a self-centered asshole and to silence criticism.

I don’t think you realize just how superficial ideological differences are. Your beliefs (political, religious, etc…) are but a tiny fraction of who you are, and no matter how different they are from someone else’s, you and that person still have a lot in common, if only because you’re both human beings.

So, no matter how different your points of view may be, there is still a very real possibility of both of you eventually reaching an understanding and maybe even an agreement, be it total or partial, because you’re both operating from the same baseline logic.

That’s more or less how I feel.

Again, sounds mostly like an excuse for you to ignore opinions you don’t like, even when you can’t actually present any arguments against it.

Or you can do what I did: realize that both absolutism and relativism could only work if I could completely detach myself from all human life, then attempt to formulate my own rules based on observation of the world and logical reasoning.

For example, I know empathy and communication have no absolute value for reality as a whole, but I do believe in their absolute value as base for human society.

#16

Ok, I’m back, sorry for the long wait, I took a few days off of the forums.

Yeah, it’s a human thing, it’s bound to have flaws. Actually, talking about those flaws is philosophy in itself.

Yeah, let’s all make fools out of ourselves.

What do you mean by “pure context”? You mean “context independent of one’s perception”? If so, relativists say that there is no pure context.

That is valid criticism and I have pondered about it many a time. But asserting there is a “reality” and that everyone should live by it can be used to achieve the same goals, i.e., act like an asshole and silence criticism. It’s a human problem, a lot of them like to be assholes and not be criticized.

I do realize. No matter how much I try, I’ll still be very much alike everyone around me. And that’s boring, if you ask me. That’s why trying to be different for the sake of variety is not a bad thing in my book.

Yeah, I assume we (me and the other person I’m talking with) are coming with same logic in mind, but are we really? I’ll never know. But, as I said before, I like to converse, and even knowing that it could go nowhere, I’ll still do it for the rest of my life.

Also, I don’t want to discourage anyone to show me their thoughts. More often than not, people can convince me to think differently. Heck, you yourself did this couple of times in this forum. :P``
#17

I meant in the sense of considering reality as purely contextual, which, again, means you’re bound to live a purely passive life.

That is a recurring problem with all ideologies: anyone can eventually turn them into instruments of domination for their own personal gain.

However, I think you need to look at the dynamics of each ideology: if you base everything on your own perceptions, you’re bound to be more cut off from everything else and self-centered, whereas basing your ideas on the principle of a reality existing outside of your own perceptions forces you to try and go beyond these perceptions and meet the outside world.

I’m not against variety, I’m against closed-off communities, which is becoming an increasingly concerning issue these days.

Chances are, there are going to be similarities: both of you will have an instinct of self-preservation, both of you will divide things between causes and effects, etc…

Of course, there are going to be subtle differences between individuals (in terms of personal concerns, views on life, etc…) but those can generally be discovered through observation.

#18

Why wouldn’t I be able to formulate principles? I do some experiments and with my perception, try to make sense out of them. The thing is, those principles only work for me, as far as I could know. Anyone else is welcome to do the experiments too and get their own conclusions.

Of course, I don’t have time and/or will to experiment everything and I end up relying on others to tell me what their experiments came to. But I would only be certain that the outcome of an experiment is what the other person told me if I did the experiment myself. This way, I can live a pretty active life.

Or I could just be aware that my perceptions can change.

In the end of the 19th century, newtonian mechanics was (capital T) Truth. Tell any physicist of the time that it wasn’t and they’d say you were talking nonsense. It didn’t take much time for some experiments to show that newtonian mechanics wasn’t describing nature as expected. A lot of those physicists couldn’t accept that their beloved theory was failing, some even said that the experiments weren’t conducted correctly. The rest of the physics community moved on, trying to find new theories. And they did find it: Quantum Field Theory (QFT) is the best we got so far. As soon as QFT starts to fail (it kinda already is failing, it doesn’t include Einstein’s gravity), we throw that out too and find a new theory.

All that my theories need to do is “to save the appearances” (don’t know if that’s the right term, it’s salvar as aparências in portuguese). As long as they describe what my perceptions tell me, they’re fine. If my perceptions, for some reason, change, I change my theories too. Are they describing reality? I dunno.

This way, I have no need to believe in (in your words) a reality existing outside of my own perceptions. Therefore, I don’t.

Agreed, you can be different, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t talk to people who are not like you.

Yeah, chances are.

#19

Can we make an essay out of this? Let’s all make an essay on Relativism.

1 Paragraph for every participant.

Make a new thread in off-topic.

Conclude the essay. I want to learn from you.

#20

https://www.realmeye.com/forum/forum-game-the-never-ending-story