A question on relativism

[BCven86]

So I have been talking to my friends and thinking myself about the idea of relativism. I have a few questions about the refutation of relativism from a Catholic standpoint.

1. What is reality? Is it solely based on our human senses? If so, what if our senses are different? How do we know which is the ‘right’ way to sense reality? Is there an absolute reality out there?

Say I have a friend that is colorblind. Obviously their sense of reality is going to a little bit different than mind; however, society and common reason has deemed my senses to be ‘correct’. One friend calls this higher, more in tune sense of reality omniscience (I’m not exactly sure if philosophically this is the correct word for it). If that is possible, what if the common reality as seen by the majority of humans is as the colorblind person, is there (or could there be) a more omniscient state that would mirror what it would be to being able to see in full color? If there is, how can we be sure of our own omniscience and reality?

1. After breaking down human perception, we came to the question of “Can we be sure of anything other than what we perceive?”. What if we are all subjects to a system as in the Matrix, where our worldly perception comes only from a plug in the back of our head? How would we know? How can we be absolutely certain of anything other than what we sense and perceive? and also, considering my first point, how do we know that what we do see as objective truth is the fullness of what truth is in a state of full omniscience?

My logical and realistic answer to all this is that we have to go off of the reality we experience as humans (although this can vary, but that is another discussion) as the full truth, and assuming that we can come to certain conclusions as to what is objectively truthful. That, however, is only assuming that we all experience the same thing and that there is no high omniscience that doesn’t conflict with it.

I have not studied much philosophy or anything like that so I hope that all makes sense. What I am looking for is a refutation of this mode of thought and a good argument and explanation that there is objective truth beyond what our human bodies can sense.

Thanks!

 

[BCven86]

No takers?

 

[StCsDavid]

So I have been talking to my friends and thinking myself about the idea of relativism. I have a few questions about the refutation of relativism from a Catholic standpoint.

1. What is reality? Is it solely based on our human senses? If so, what if our senses are different? How do we know which is the ‘right’ way to sense reality? Is there an absolute reality out there?

I’ll start with the first question just because I don’t have time to answer your entire post.

From a Catholic point of view, reality is not limited to the human senses as evidenced by the sacraments which are physical elements that represent a reality we cannot see. As to an absolute reality I would say the Trinity is the best evidence of that. I don’t know that there is a right way or a wrong way to sense reality. Reality simply is. How one chooses to engage it varies, but there can really only be one absolute reality.

 

[Swan]

I’m going to add fuel to the flame you already started instead of trying to refute it. The problem with any theology and/or philosophy is that all are based on human interpretation which is in turn based on human experience. That’s why we have so many schools of thought in these areas. I don’t think it is wise or possible to disregard our own experience - did God not give these experiences to us for a reason? So, we have to make decisions based on what is true for us (big “T”, little “t”). Are some things inherenly bad? Probably. To me, things that are iherently bad would be things that attacked the dignity of the person. I realize that’s a pretty broad statement. For example, murder, injustice, exploitation, torture, rape, etc. These are things that jump out at me as being wrong. And I think that if you look at most cultures these are going to be the things that are legislated/legally prohibited. And I’m not speaking of only Christian cultures.

 

[BCven86]

I’m going to add fuel to the flame you already started instead of trying to refute it. The problem with any theology and/or philosophy is that all are based on human interpretation which is in turn based on human experience. That’s why we have so many schools of thought in these areas. I don’t think it is wise or possible to disregard our own experience - did God not give these experiences to us for a reason? So, we have to make decisions based on what is true for us (big “T”, little “t”). Are some things inherenly bad? Probably. To me, things that are iherently bad would be things that attacked the dignity of the person. I realize that’s a pretty broad statement. For example, murder, injustice, exploitation, torture, rape, etc. These are things that jump out at me as being wrong. And I think that if you look at most cultures these are going to be the things that are legislated/legally prohibited. And I’m not speaking of only Christian cultures.

I agree with that, I guess what I am trying to build is a baseline for being able to call a truth or fact absolute and objective; I’m sure you understand why this is important. I would say that in order to do this it is important to reference 3rd party sources, i.e. a vast majority of people, scientific measurement tools, etc. in order to attempt to say something as such. I think that it isn’t possible to state something is objective based on one or even several people’s experiences as they might be biased.

I agree that it is a bad thing to disregard our own experiences, but is it possible to declare something objectively true based on our own experiences? I would say not. This is a stretch, but take a look at the movie the Matrix… their senses and experiences were being controlled by a computer and that was their reality, however not absolute reality. What’s to say something like this isn’t happening (obscure, I know). Realistically I think all we have to go off of is the reality that we are in, and thus we have to assume that it is the case.

 

[Swan]

I agree with that, I guess what I am trying to build is a baseline for being able to call a truth or fact absolute and objective; I’m sure you understand why this is important. I would say that in order to do this it is important to reference 3rd party sources, i.e. a vast majority of people, scientific measurement tools, etc. in order to attempt to say something as such. I think that it isn’t possible to state something is objective based on one or even several people’s experiences as they might be biased.

I agree that it is a bad thing to disregard our own experiences, but is it possible to declare something objectively true based on our own experiences? I would say not. This is a stretch, but take a look at the movie the Matrix… their senses and experiences were being controlled by a computer and that was their reality, however not absolute reality. What’s to say something like this isn’t happening (obscure, I know). Realistically I think all we have to go off of is the reality that we are in, and thus we have to assume that it is the case.

I totally understand your concerns with the nature of reality. The entire concept is fascinating when you really think about it. It may be circular, however, because no matter how long we chase it we are still stuck with our concept - we probably don’t really ever grasp “reality” unless we accept that it could be an illusion. IOW, it may be impossible to be truly definitive. I think that is why the Buddhists don’t stress over reality - because they know our ability to understand it is so limited. Still, it’s what we have so we tend to struggle with it. I know I do. I’ve been interested in mysticism for a long time and a lot of what I’ve read says that you have to start by breaking down your perception of reality…

 

[cpayne]

Let’s start with the “perceptions” questions. As you noted, people’s perceptions can contradict each other. For example, I might see a green lawn, but the color-blind person sees it as “not-green.” If we were relying on our perceptions for reality, it follows we could never have knowledge, since genuine knowledge does not contradict itself and perceptions CAN contradict each other (the lawn is “green” and “not-green,” for example).

It follows that perceptions are not and cannot be objects of knowledge.

Our reality, then, is not perceptions (contrary to the Matrix idea). Perceptions are the way we come to know sensory reality (objects of knowledge), which is separate from our senses and previous to them. As Aquinas says, the intellect comes to know *by means of *the sense perception; the intellect doesn’t just know the sense perception itself. (This is from somewhere in the Treatise on Man in Part I of the Summa Theologica.)

Regarding The Matrix, just think for a second: If Neo could not trust his senses throughout his entire life, why should he suddenly trust them just because some people told him he now could? The basic premise behind the movie (which, to give it credit, was a good movie) is self-refuting.

Here’s another way to put it: When Neo was offered the choice of pills (reality pill vs. non-reality pill), if he could not trust his perceptions to grant true knowledge anyway, why should it matter which pill he chose? How was he supposed to know if he chose the “reality” pill that it would grant him “real” perceptions of “real” reality?

You see the kind of puzzles we wander into as soon as we think of our perceptions as our “knowledge.” We have knowledge of reality, not knowledge of perceptions. There is no such thing as “knowledge” of perceptions. Perceptions are the means by which we gain knowledge, which is knowledge of reality.

Okay (deep breath), I think that’s my :twocents:

 

[BCven86]

Let’s start with the “perceptions” questions. As you noted, people’s perceptions can contradict each other. For example, I might see a green lawn, but the color-blind person sees it as “not-green.” If we were relying on our perceptions for reality, it follows we could never have knowledge, since genuine knowledge does not contradict itself and perceptions CAN contradict each other (the lawn is “green” and “not-green,” for example).

It follows that perceptions are not and cannot be objects of knowledge.

Our reality, then, is not perceptions (contrary to the Matrix idea). Perceptions are the way we come to know sensory reality (objects of knowledge), which is separate from our senses and previous to them. As Aquinas says, the intellect comes to know *by means of *the sense perception; the intellect doesn’t just know the sense perception itself. (This is from somewhere in the Treatise on Man in Part I of the Summa Theologica.)

Regarding The Matrix, just think for a second: If Neo could not trust his senses throughout his entire life, why should he suddenly trust them just because some people told him he now could? The basic premise behind the movie (which, to give it credit, was a good movie) is self-refuting.

Here’s another way to put it: When Neo was offered the choice of pills (reality pill vs. non-reality pill), if he could not trust his perceptions to grant true knowledge anyway, why should it matter which pill he chose? How was he supposed to know if he chose the “reality” pill that it would grant him “real” perceptions of “real” reality?

You see the kind of puzzles we wander into as soon as we think of our perceptions as our “knowledge.” We have knowledge of reality, not knowledge of perceptions. There is no such thing as “knowledge” of perceptions. Perceptions are the means by which we gain knowledge, which is knowledge of reality.

Okay (deep breath), I think that’s my :twocents:

Ok, so perception is only the means of generating knowledge of reality, not the knowledge itself? Sorry, I had a little trouble following what you said.

Does this example follow your thought process? To continue with the green grass example: our perceptions of what color the grass actually is may differ but the fundamental truth that exists is that there is grass.

Hmmm… I think I got that wrong. Would you mind giving another example of how this takes place?

Thanks!

 

[cpayne]

Actually, you seem to have summarized my meandering comments pretty well.

To quote your first paragraph: “Perception is only the means of generating knowledge of reality, not the knowledge itself.” Right, that’s what I was trying to say.

Someone might object, “But all we have is perceptions, so that’s all we have for knowledge.” However, we can also infer from perceptions. To use the grass example, if one person says the grass is green, and another person says the grass is not green, we could logically infer that one person is wrong and one is right. When we find out which one’s eyes are functioning normally, we would also know which one was right and which one wrong. The grass itself (and its color) is the object of knowledge; the perception is the means by which we gain that knowledge.

This is how I’m thinking Aquinas puts it, anyway. But I’m open to correction. uch:

The biggest advantage to this seems to be that it opens up the world of reality to us, instead of keeping us locked away in our own separate Matrix-like universes, where all we have is our individual perceptions as our only reality.

 

[warriorofpeace]

ok your martrix realitity is greener on your side of the fence and my mtrix reality seems to be having green withering grass with no money to water it. gives a whole different matrix reality in existence of love thy neibouring computer

 

[cpayne]

ok your martrix realitity is greener on your side of the fence and my mtrix reality seems to be having green withering grass with no money to water it. gives a whole different matrix reality in existence of love thy neibouring computer

Ah, yes. Just what I was going to say.

 

[warriorofpeace]

you stretch to bad vengence wont be bliss for you. then again have have 3 matrix slave sproats under my control on my computer monitor hope that helps. God