I
Inego_de_Loyola
Guest
A thing cannot be both A and not A at the same time an in the same way; that is the law of non-contradiction. It is absolutely inconceivable that this even could be false.
Could someone please explain how to defend absolute truth from relativism?
- Status
H
hazmat
Guest
the best thing you can do really, is make bald assertions and keep repeating yourself.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
I will answer as a post-modernist, linguistic idealist, who is comfortable both with relativism and absolutism.
It is true that the use of language is an action of the subject, and therefore ‘truth’ (a property of language), in this sense, is relative. If I say “Today is cold,” the truth (however that might be defined) depends, at a certain level, upon what I mean by “Today”, “is” and “cold”.
But, insofar as the proposition is communicated to another its meaning becomes distinct from its ‘intended meaning.’ Then ‘truth’ of the statement might depend upon the recipient, and how they understand “Today”, “is”, and “cold”.
Furthermore, insofar as language is, by its nature, always, at least to some extent, communal, the recipient’s interpretation is not entirely a private (subjective, or more accurately dative) matter- the recipient is not at liberty to interpret “cold” as meaning what the language community would normally call “hot”.
However, it is necessary to point out that language communities are infinitely flexible, and so is meaning, including the meaning of “truth”.
Now, the case against relativism- the use of language is, by its very nature, an attempt to move a sentiment or idea bey**ond the subject- to refer to, or construct, or interpret an object (which may be defined as a communally shared concept/thing/idea). This movement towards ‘objectivity’, to being understood (or even misunderstood), inherent in the act of writing itself, necessitates a non-relativist (or at least quasi-non-relativist) concept of truth.
I have argued elswhere that objectivity is a fiction- yet it is a necessary one.
And this is not relative…
C
cho_pilo
Guest
Actually, it’s not really a separate topic, since the implication is that indifferentism is an inevitable result of not embracing that which you feel is necessary in order for there to be any sort of legitimate, objective truth at all. You know, God. So are you saying that an atheist has no rational ground for adopting one philosophical position over another, or is unable to make legitimate judgments on issues of morality or ethics?
C
cho_pilo
Guest
Please specify the logic and spell out the argument, premises and conclusion.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
Of course it’s not inconceivable, the principle of non-contradiction is not unrestrictedly true in paraconsistent logics.
S
sedonaman
Guest
If someone tells you that morality is relative, ask him why you should accept his.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
You already did for me in this comment, by you demanding premises and a conclusion is demanding objectivity. And in doing so demonstrates truth exists outside the mind. Thank you for proving my point.
M
Micorhizea
Guest
It is really prety simple: God is absolute; everything else is relativism.
E
edwest2
Guest
First, you should know that Pope Benedict has told us that some of us are living under a Dictatorship of Relativism - that nothing can be known for certain. I’ve read it: “What is good for you may be bad for me.”
Second, Pope Benedict has spoken of ‘radical individualism’ as well. How can we have a functioning society when many are all running off in their own direction?
Third, the Holy Father has pointed out Indifference as being another problem. It creates a, “Who cares what others are doing?” or “Hey, what’s the big deal about fornication or porn or a lot of the dysfunctional relationships that are being presented as normal?”
The Catholic Church is the greatest truth telling institution in the world, and it is up to each of us to understand why it teaches what it teaches. We must present the truth with charity. Some will listen and some will not, but we must speak the truth in season and out of season. And we must set a good example by our own behavior and actions.
catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=42151
Be encouraged and live out what the Church teaches. Remember, when Jesus sent His disciples, some believed and some did not. We must continue to speak the truth and not lose heart. We are to be witnesses to the truth.
Peace,
Ed
D
DigitalFish_20
Guest
Its very easy to defend the concept of moral absolutism because it can be defended through retortion. A defense by retortion is when any attempt to overturn an assertion must rest upon the assertion itself. This in effect actually endorses the concept in question and therefore self refutes the objection.
Anyone phrasing an objection against absolute truth is phrasing an absolute–that all truth is relative and should be treated as such.
Anyone phrasing an objection against absolute truth is phrasing an absolute–that all truth is relative and should be treated as such.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
If you do not have an argument, kindly link me to whatever site it is where you got the idea that there is an argument. I cannot provide a crit unless you produce something.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
You’re missing the point of my retort. If you desire reading material on the subject, I suggest Last Superstition by Feser which deals with this subject in the chapter “Greeks bearing gifts” under the subsection “Realism, nominalism and conceptualism.”
C
cho_pilo
Guest
So, no argument.
Here’s the post to which I responded:
I assume that your first argument is something like this:
- relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
- any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
- therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.
First, you will need to demonstrate that your premises are plausible, and that will be difficult, because on the face of it, they’re both false. Certainly, in order to defend premise 1, you’ll need to explicate the notion of relativism that you’re addressing. After all, it might turn out to be a notion that nobody has any interest in defending. Second, you will need to be clear about the nature of the incompatibility, mooted in premise 1, and state the inference by which this incompatibility entails your conclusion.
About your second “argument”:
As this is your first mention of indifferentism, there is no “this is why” about it, and on this occasion, I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be.
You will need to explain what “indifferentism” is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.
So, as things stand, you haven’t shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven’t shown that it it were, this would entail indifferentism.
T
Trevor_Stamm
Guest
Before going into it, are we to use absolute objectives to arrive at a conclusion? Are we to assume truth exists and not just within each our minds but universally observed? Seems you’re begging the question of objectivity to prove subjectivity, a catch 22 on you’re part.
E
edwest2
Guest
I am reminded of something I once read - paraphrasing: “There are no absolutes!”
Do you really believe that?
“Absolutely!”
Peace,
Ed
Do you really believe that?
“Absolutely!”
Peace,
Ed
C
cho_pilo
Guest
What do you mean? I’m asking for an argument, as you can see by reviewing my posts.
What the hell is “universally observed” and how is it relevant? If it is not the case that relativism is indefensible, then the statement that it’s not indefensible is true. Is that the kind of thing that you mean?
Does it? I imagine that would depend on what you mean, which yet again appears to be anybody’s guess.
R
ricks1948
Guest
Great post, thanks.This here might help you. It’s a slide show explaining absolute truth.
Q
Qoeleth
Guest
There is this old, childish argument, mentioned many times here:
If “there is no absolute truths”, then the statement “there are no absolute truths”, must not be absolutely true.
This argument is flawed. Even if the statement “there are no absolute truths” is held only to be a relative truth, it still stands for what it is, and, in fact, more strongly.
So, I can be a relativism, and hold that relativism is only relatively true. There is no illogicality there at all.
If “there is no absolute truths”, then the statement “there are no absolute truths”, must not be absolutely true.
This argument is flawed. Even if the statement “there are no absolute truths” is held only to be a relative truth, it still stands for what it is, and, in fact, more strongly.
So, I can be a relativism, and hold that relativism is only relatively true. There is no illogicality there at all.
C
cho_pilo
Guest
Sure there are absolutes…you are going to die, i’m going to die , and someone was going to ABSOLUTELY disagree with your post. If you jump of a brigde you are going to absolutely fall downwards. Just like your post is an absolute paradox of what you just said…congratulations i dubb thee " Captain Hypocrite"
- Status