Need I say more? Of late, this odd topic has been creeping into my daily ongoings with great frequency. I'm not sure why (or how), but it has managed.I know in my brief time contributing to some discussion on this forum, it has come up more than once... It doesn't bother me, though. It's a very interesting topic, especially to debate with those who accept its credibility.

Interesting, because that is not me.

I would like to restrict the relativism I type of to that of the typical philosophical definiton, that all truth is relative to the indivdual. Of course this incorporates the position that all points of view are equally valid, but generally speaking this leads back to truth.





So does someone want to convince me? Who accepts this paradigm, and who does not? What is it about relativism that agrees with your convictions?

One day, a brilliant artist finished a painting and showed it to a woman passing by.

"That's a lovely boat you've painted there", she said.

"Oh dear... actually, it's a rocket ship", replied the artist. Perturbed, he decided to find out what other people thought about it.

He showed his painting to an old man with fading eyes, who thought it was a picture of a radio.

He then showed his painting to a little child, who from the ground saw what looked like a shooting star.

He then showed his painting to a little dog, who sniffed at it and thought that it was a funny square blanket stapled to wood with funny colors and smells splashed all over.

Discouraged, the painter sat upon a hill looking over a night sky. Without warning a space ship appeared, and out stepped a gangly alien. Surely, the alien must know what this is a painting of!

He showed it to the alien, who cried "Why, it's a Blartusian delicasy!", and summarily gobbled up the painting, easel and all.

"In truth, it was a painting of a rocket ship", sighed the artist, pointing to the alien's ship.

The alien replied, "Rocket ship? You mean my car?"

...And with that, suddenly, the little girl abruptly awoke, wondering why she had such a funny dream where she was a genius painter. She then mysteriously thought to herself "in truth, it was all just a dream", and went back to sleep.

To this topic I would submit, truth is simply another abstraction humans make for themselves, just like languages and mathematics, that helps us to assign labels and convey relation between ideas. Depending on ones' internal filters, biological makeup and life experiences, the truth that exists from an individuals' perspective may vary considerably from person to person. If we are proposing that there is an absolute truth that exists regardless of human perception, we may or may not already be aware of it, though it would be difficult to discern whether our humble senses prove a sufficiently reasonable litmus test for determining what constitutes absolute truth.

What about the so called universal truths like it's wrong to kill or wrong to steal? These are inherently subject to perspective as well because of the differnt circumstances that could sourround each instace. Is killing really wrong when it is done in war, or in self defence or, to protect another, or punish for a horrible crime like when God lightning struck people in the old testament? Is stealing really wrong if it is done to survive, or to reclain something that was once rightfully yours and so fourth. In saying that truth is relative one may agree with the concept of truth being based on perspective. I think that in some instances truth is actually subject to circumstance.

I don't really want to go too deep into this but here's my 2 cents - I would say when it comes to the individual they have a choice to believe in the concept of relativism/pluralism or the concept of absolute truth. I would say there is no "concrete argument" for either side to "prove" that one is correct. People are given the will/choice to accept or deny certain truth paths.

In the end a relativists impose their perspectives on an idea which brings it down to being relative to an individual and/or circumstance.
We live in a generation where most people hold onto the idea of "that's what you think" and "but this happened to me" etc. People try to come up with "valid" excuses to justify their means of action which I don't think should excuse their end.

It takes something else to hold onto truth values.

Sorry for the late, I am sick

Well, it's a hard topic to debate, because is one of those questions which answer we'll never know. I don't know if is the flu, but I cannot find appropriate words to start, so I apologize for my English on this thread.

My position is that everything is relative if it involves humans. Laws, ethics, philosophy... everything that falls in subjectivity is susceptible to relativism, as I said in a previous thread

Quoting myself

For me, everything that varies within persons is subject to relativity. If you open the thread, we might continue debating this topic (...) Morality? it rules human behavior, which is relative, and despite their efforts to make a universal rules of conduct, it has changed with time, making it relative. Rationality... since is based on agreement can be changed too, but is the strongest; and knowledge is easy: it varies with the context. For example, the best PhD in any science is probably an ignorant in terms of survival, or cooking, where a illiterate person is by far better. An abstract concept of this words can be considered absolute, and that will make interpretation of these concepts relative as well.

At other aspects of reality, such as physics or biology, relativity is not that strong. We are particular, unique and variable minds amidst a universe that we cannot understand. We are so ignorant about the universe that we can write infinite theories about how it works, all of them valid but equally wrong. Almost none of our approximations to the absolute truth would achieve it with certainty. However, that does not discard the concept of an absolute truth: without us, the universe is the same, and all would be explained with a single law if at least some of us were bright enough to decipher it (Einstein made it, but it requires a genius to understand another, or several centuries) So relativity takes no place when there's no place for interpretation. Even among the oldest and most exact of sciences, physics, the absolute reality has been there always but for us it has changed several times, and it will as long as we exist. The same will happen with life and even with god himself.

Now I'll try to switch my statement in terms of my weakest argument: the philosophic. If there is an absolute truth, but it varies with individual interpretations and perceptions of it, that absolute truth is practically nonexistent, because it would be known by no one. At the other side, infinite realities, one for each thinking being, exist, if it is based on interpretation. In that case, nothing would be absolute. I'm more in agreement with the first option.

Get ready for my essay...

RedZeshin

...though it would be difficult to discern whether our humble senses prove a sufficiently reasonable litmus test for determining what constitutes absolute truth.

That is true. The fact of the matter is, subjectivity is everywhere, in science, in art, in everything. However as with many other paradigms that have been accepted scienfically over the decades, it's always been because, contextaully, it is advantageous. So the question is, can we know anything for sure? It seems that you feel we cannot. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure (much like Decartes' rational for consciousness; I think, therefore I am). This of course is self-defeating. Perhaps this is unimportant, and as your story goes, perhaps we are only perceiving different aspects of the same reality. However what if my reality is that your reality is false? Then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one or both of us is in error, and if one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true.

thewarangel

In saying that truth is relative one may agree with the concept of truth being based on perspective. I think that in some instances truth is actually subject to circumstance.

So all truth is relative? I've always had a problem with this statement (let alone the whole system of belief) because it is so illogical and self-refuting. If all truth is relative, then the statement "all truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. I've already argued against perspective.

Gvnkwyr

If there is an absolute truth, but it varies with individual interpretations and perceptions of it, that absolute truth is practically nonexistent, because it would be known by no one.

The same arguement above goes for the opposite, that there are no absolute truths. The statement itself is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. It is therefore an absolute truth and "there are no absolute truths" is false. Further, if there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Nothing could be true for you (including relativism) if you look at it this way.

It was shorter than I was expecting...

ChrisWas

So the question is, can we know anything for sure? It seems that you feel we cannot. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure. This of course is self-defeating

I prefer to scape this disjunctive with a relativist answer: maybe. Can we know anything for sure? We're humans, imperfect and limited, so in most if not all cases the answer will be "no", but in the same way we cannot know that we cannot know anything for sure, even when we believe we cannot be sure of anything we know. Can we affirm that we cannot know anything for sure? In most cases the answer would be "yes", but there's a place for doubt and for that little "no" that makes things even more confusing. Maybe we know some things for sure, but we don't know that because we are not sure of the certainty of our knowledge.

...creepy, isn't it? I'm getting existentialist

ChrisWas

Further, if there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Nothing could be true for you (including relativism) if you look at it this way.

Are you saying people cannot believe in relative truths? (or at least in truths assumed absolute) Why? A truth have to be absolute in order to be subject of belief? (and please, answer my questions, I'm intrigued) The lovely side of relativism is that if I believe in relative truths but you don't, relativism turns into a relative truth, because it changes with perspective.

However, the logic sense that you have stated to me is interesting, because "there are not absolute truths" is an absolutist statement, which is true: even my belief in relativism is an absolute truth for me, so my own statement would be contradicting itself. Some kind of paradox that would be killing me if I were a robot. For that reason I tried two separated ways to approach this topic. A brief conclusion would be "there might be absolute truths, but not all truths are absolute"... let me think in some words that don't self-refute in order to clear my mind and stop the neuronal loop.

Regarding the rest of your essay, different views of an absolute truth do not necessarily exclude or contradict each other. I once heard a story similar to RedZeshin's but less artistic. It has many versions and in fact is an adaptation of an old poem.

The web

A school for blind children was having a field trip to the zoo. When they arrived, 5 were chosen to have a hands-on visit with the elephant. While the keeper watched carefully, each child felt around a different part of the elephant. When they were done, they rejoined their excited classmates. Naturally, the question was: "What is an elephant like?" Child #1, who had felt a leg, said "an elephant is like a tree." #2, after feeling the trunk, said he thought "it was like a large snake." #3 had felt the side and said "elephants are like large barns." #4 had felt the tail, and exclaimed that "an elephant is like a strong rope." The fifth child had felt the ear and was sure that "elephants are like palm leaves."

Here, my friend, we have 5 relative truths, each of them correct in their context, all of them wrong (incomplete, actually) compared with the whole picture, 5 different interpretations of an absolute truth. However, from my point of view, the concept of elephant, as absolute as it is, turned relative when it involved humans, as I said in my previous post.

Getting high with the topic, let me add a final question (for now): an absolutist statements that is self-contradictory is not by itself a prove that is better to avoid absolutes? (like Jedi, quoting Obi Wan: "only a Sith thinks in absolutes") So I have convinced you a little, or may I call you Darth Chris? hehehehe


Hit me back soon, this is going pretty interesting!

I have to be careful here...

Firstly, I feel there is inherent lack of conceptual clarity in the notion ‘absolute truth’, as with many things in contemporary science (especially concepts like evolution). As RedZeshin said, 'truth' is something devised by humans, making it a very anthropocentric phenomena. What I'd like to consider 'absolute truths' are those things that exist as an objective reality, beyond the human mind (let's not start a debate on the existence of the human mind just yet).


My first comment is about this response:

Gvnkwry

Can we know anything for sure? We're humans, imperfect and limited, so in most if not all cases the answer will be "no"... there's a place for doubt and for that little "no" that makes things even more confusing

I consider my original point still valid. So often logic falls into infitite regress, and it can be incredibly frustrating, because the problem can be sourced back infinitely to a previous cause. But I'd like to suggest that we have an implicit knowledge about this (like that which Descarte presented). His famous saying, which I'm sure you've heard, was 'I think, therefore I am'. Not many know the logic he used to get to this conclusion, and I feel it can be extrapolated in this case onto 'knowing' something for sure. I'll explain...

1. Descarte came to the conclusion that he can be sure of his knowledge that he existed. His rational? That he thought. Or, perhaps more accurately, that he doubted. Thinking didn't prove his existence, but his doubt in thinking that he existed proved it, as he could not doubt that he was doubting.
2. In the same way, we can know 'something' for sure; because although we can think that we cannot know something, we cannot doubt that we have thought about whether we do or do not know that something, which is something you know.

Gvnkwry

Are you saying people cannot believe in relative truths? (or at least in truths assumed absolute) Why? A truth have to be absolute in order to be subject of belief?

Interesting concept. And no, I'm not asserting that. I can say I like jazz, and you like *insert preferred music genre here*, and that is the truth. I like Picaso's 'Guernica', but someone else may not. 1 + 1 = 2. My name is Chris. I am no more correct than anyone else on such subjective matters. However those truths and the absolute truths I am thinking of differ. I'm not thinking of facts. Those truths are ok; they can be the 'subject of belief'. For truths 'assumed absolute', however, I feel that the answer is yes, that is what I'm saying. True or false.

What would you say if I asked you this: do you feel womens' rights/suffrage are good, correct things? Discussion will certainly continue upon answering this question...


The elephant story also illustrates my point well I think. I have also heard that one, and I think it raises some excellent points. One that strikes me in particular is how flawed observation is. Now let me clarify something. I'm not arguing that we have absolute truth and knowledge. On the contrary, we may not ever have it, as most of the above posts mention. We're far too imperfect, far too from reaching true objectivity. Nevertheless, even if we never reach absoluteness, I still feel it exists. Despite our supposed inability to percieve or comprehend absolute truths, our ignorance is independent to whether absolute truths actually exist.


So...

Gvnkwyr

the concept of elephant, as absolute as it is, turned relative when it involved humans, as I said in my previous post.

This case makes it easy to come to a conclusion on my part. It certainly did turn become relative when humans were involved, however this doesn't, in the slightest, detract from the fact that it is most certainly an elephant, and that each child's relative view of what they are grasping is incorrect. As I responded to RedZeshin about his art story, all of their realities differ, and they (supposedly) believe the others to be wong. They cannot all be true. If they are all are not true, then one or all are in error, and if one or all are in error, then relativism is not true.



You're right, reply quickly! This is turning out to be very interesting indeed. You're gonna have to be calling me DarthChris for a while still I think

Also, your final question: "an absolutist statements that is self-contradictory is not by itself a prove that is better to avoid absolutes", was just a statement so I didn't know how to answer.

That was a bit more like an essay.

Yes, that WAS an essay

Sorry if I take my time to keep the debate, academic obligations are pulling me back in real-life. This one will be relatively brief:

Darth ChrisWas

What I'd like to consider 'absolute truths' are those things that exist as an objective reality, beyond the human mind

In that case we have reach and agreement, because from my position, relativism only exists when it involves human minds. Relativism depends of the observer, the environment, the context. Without any of them, there's no relativity. In that case we can neither say "everything is absolute" or "everything is relative" (as I once said), because many things would be absolute, and many other relative. I must say that I feel uncomfortable now with the word "truth", because if it is something devised by humans, entirely anthropocentric, there's no way that the phrase "absolute truth" sound good, it's quite an oxymoron.

Things that exist beyond our mind can be understood with certainty? I don't know, I'd say no, because our intellect have not reached that degree of perfection to understand something that complex (like the universe, the life, human soul, etcetera). By exploring that absolute concept that we don't understand, we (humans) get to understand part of that absolute idea. No matter how sure we are of that partial knowledge, we'd never know if that piece of knowledge is valid or true, at least that we domain the whole. Human interpretations of absolute ideas are subject to relativity. The truth is still absolute, but our approaches are not.

ChrisWas

What would you say if I asked you this: do you feel womens' rights/suffrage are good, correct things?

I understand your point: Judging something as good or bad, correct or incorrect does not involve an absolute truth, neither a fact, only a belief. Opinions are by nature relative. My answer may have changed: today I say "of course yes", 100 years ago in a chauvinist society I would say "of course no", same time same place but if I were a lady I'd say "yes" or maybe "not" because of fear, oppression or brainwashing. Even pushing the concept to it's most abstract form, equality and justice, none of them are "absolute truths". Regarding the belief in concepts considered absolutes, you are right. Absolute ideas are rarely proven, many of them escape to our comprehension, and there's where belief comes in hand (or in mind, to be specific). Even when not all absolute concepts are subject to belief (do you believe in life or gravity?), being absolute in nature is a sine qua non requirement for basing a system of belief.

ChrisWas

One that strikes me in particular is how flawed observation is

Of course, every observation or measurement is subject to bias, and is totally relative. If I got the black humor joke, any observation (taking the word literally) made by a group of blind children is cruelly flawed. If kids had sight all relativity regarding how an elephant looks is over. We are limited by our senses, even with the most sophisticated instruments we are, when facing an absolute idea, like blind children. Continuing with that story, every single "observation" made by those kids is true in their particular context, and at the same are false at the light of the absolute concept. This can be extrapolated to any situation involving absolute ideas.

ChrisWas

(...) They cannot all be true. If they are all are not true, then one or all are in error, and if one or all are in error, then relativism is not true.

Why not? The beauty of relativism is that relative ideas can be true, even when they contradict each other or are not agree with the absolute concept. Saying "the whole elephant is like a tree" is wrong, but saying "some part of the elephant is like a tree" is true, and saying "some part of the elephant is like a rope" is also true at the same time. A truth that is variable allows relative co-existing truths, even when faced with the absolute stuff all turned to be false.

What do you say? I guess we're not going to convince entirely each other (is not necessary either), but some counter-arguments and neutral conclusions will allow us to happily close this topic... and start with the human-mind one