Could someone please explain how to defend absolute truth from relativism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hey everyone. I am not good when it comes to philosophical matters so I decided to come on here and ask if someone could help me learn how to defend absolute truth from relativism? I am not wanting a debate, I just simply want to know the basics of how to defend absolute truth from relativism. Thanks!
 
It depends on if you’re arguing with someone who is arguing out of spite or intelligence.

If they’re arguing out of spite, the short answer is: you can’t.

I’m not saying that relativism is more “right” just that… well let me answer your question with a question.

“Can you tell me something so simple that there is nobody so stupid they can’t understand it?” Every time you think you have an idiot-proof argument, the universe will invent a better idiot.

Relating that to relativism, an obnoxious relativist can merely say “well that’s your opinion.” Again, not saying that it is a more correct argument, just that it’s difficult to make headway against.​

If they’re arguing out of intelligence, then here is what I would attempt.

You can’t argue that specific actions are good or evil since it really is motivation that makes them so (i.e. donating money to charity for charity’s sake is a morally better action than donating the same quantity of money for the sake of a tax write-off).

But here is the argument I would use. The definition of a “good” action is one done to make the world better from the perspective of the person doing it.
Note, that is not saying that others cannot weigh in on that person’s assessment of “good.;” from a lioness’ perspective, killing me to feed to her cubs is a morally good action, but that doesn’t mean that I will let her do it.

An evil act desires to make the world worse. This can be as petty as “I have to get up at 5am, so I’m going to be loud and wake my wife up because if I don’t get to sleep in, neither should she!” Or it can be of a larger scale, “My life sucks, let’s go beat some black people do death!”

Now, your relativist friend may counter that the people who are hurting other people have a view that they are making the world better. This argument serves to do two things:
1.) It states that they acknowledge that all people see “making the world better” as a moral end to head towards (and hence secures that argument), or why would these people rationalize it as such?
2.) It is on a weak footing because the argument is so open to criticism. If these people were trying to make the world better (say by taking what they view as an undesirable race away), they would be open to more effective or more constructive methodologies.
The third option is just to be annoying.

You: “There is an absolute truth!”
Other: “No, everything is relative.”
You: “The statement ‘everything is relative’ is an absolute statement, so if that’s true, then that must be an absolute truth, and if it’s relative, than there must be exceptions to it, which means that there must be absolute truths.”

It’s a circular argument that doesn’t actually mean anything, but if they’re just being obnoxious, this is a way to beat them at that game.
 
LJH_80 said:
The third option is just to be annoying.

You: “There is an absolute truth!”
Other: “No, everything is relative.”
You: “The statement ‘everything is relative’ is an absolute statement, so if that’s true, then that must be an absolute truth, and if it’s relative, than there must be exceptions to it, which means that there must be absolute truths.”

It’s a circular argument that doesn’t actually mean anything, but if they’re just being obnoxious, this is a way to beat them at that game.
Click to expand...
I disagree with this statement that it says that it is annoying.
No, this argument for me, it is the essence of the argument.
You cannot assert absolutely that everything is relative. It is maybe an aporia. Click here to see.
One of the ones I love is the sentence, taken for greek philosopher:

“I am a liar!”

Relativism falls from his own assertment.
 
Sometimes objective truth can change from objective to subjective as understanding and proof progresses. For example, at one time the world was considered flat. Based on normal human experience at that time, there was no direct data to the contrary, so this was considered objective truth, based on the preponderance of observational and sensory data.

Today, we base the round earth assumption on others. In other words, although the earth is round, very few humans actually have their own direct sensory proof of this. You take the word of the experts.

Say there were no trustworthy experts. It would be easier to prove to yourself a flat earth than a round earth. The flat earth only requires looking outside at what appears to be endless flat land due to huge size. The round proof will require a tough sea voyage, to gather direct data, that few will have the stones to take. So it was consensus objective, based on the preponderance of direct observation, that the earth was once flat.

This consensus observational objectivity of a flat earth, changed to subjective, after some people risked the journey to gain direct proof. The consensus then defined this as objective.

Even today in science, even if a theory was conceptually true, if it lacks data, the old theory is considered objective truth, due to consensus objective data. But if the new data appears, the old can change to subjective. The old worked with the smaller data set; a local arc of the curve. But this arc would now be subjective for the larger arc on the curve.
 
I wonder how any proposed defenses of ‘absolute truth’ here fare against Aggripa’s trilemma:

For any claim you believe to be true, I’ll ask why you believe it’s true. At some point, you’ll end up doing one of the three: (i) repeating a reason you’ve already given and thus reasoning circularly, (ii) providing reasons on to infinity, in which case your belief is never actually justified, or (iii) merely assuming that it’s true, in which case you haven’t shown that your belief is true, even if we share the assumption.

Here’s an illustration:

Bob: “I reckon it’s gonna rain today.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “'Cause, them there clouds is rain clouds.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “Just look at 'em, can’t yer see 'em? They’re all heavy and dark like.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “'Cause I see 'em with my own eyes!”

Ooops…sorry Bob, you’ve already appealed to your visual apparatus, you’ve reasoned circularly. Try again:

Bob*: “Why do I think them there clouds is heavy and dark like?”
Jim: “Yup.”
Bob: “Well…I 'spose…I just do.”

Oooops…sorry Bob, now you’re just assuming your reason is true, that doesn’t actually show that it is.

etc.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am not good when it comes to philosophical matters so I decided to come on here and ask if someone could help me learn how to defend absolute truth from relativism? I am not wanting a debate, I just simply want to know the basics of how to defend absolute truth from relativism. Thanks!
Click to expand...
You ask a difficult question. The ‘how to’ and the ‘explanation’ merge in what certain schools of postivism define as ‘process’. Process is movement from one point to another, resulting in change. Usually, in fact, always, in conversation and discussion these two points are – importantly – labelled ‘relative’ moments in time. The relative delimiting time points in process need not be related by linearity, or be strictly interval, ratio notions of temporal distance. I.e. You read this, look up a few things of which you lack familiarity, and, if it proves to have been a really important topic to you, consider it and its expanding implications for the remainder of your philosophical career. In other words, you may begin on Monday, pick up a thread on Friday, and then next Monday relate all you have synthesized thus far via the modicom of a memory from chilhood, an actual experiential memory of last Monday’s thinking, or, to invite total disaster, integrate your knowledge during sleep, perchance, in a dream… That temporal graph is not only possible, but very likely ‘how’ actual synthesis takes place in a HUMAN mind. Usually not linear or completely final. Shall we say, who doesn’t remember some form of the ‘birds and the bees’ from childhood and have that NOT impact his current thinking on human …?

If you are in Australia, not only does the bathtub drain in a different spiral direction than in North America, but the way the sun inflects relative to the four cardinal directions is different also. However, you are on the same planet earth (taken as a geographical as opposed to a sociological enitity). And certainly, the sun as a solar body is the same (barring its continual flux of radiation and its own relatively shifting position) always.

You might not try saying this, but a great little proverb sums things up. “All roads lead to Rome”. Also, no matter where you start in any theological debate, any philosphical discussion, there is nothing in these that cannot be answered by the gospels and the human community called the Church. Practical problem is: though all, even the worst of sinners may obtain heaven with a single sigh of repentance or the simple merciful discretion of God, to bake a cake you need some hundreds of degrees of temperature, to have a diamond, you need massive heat, pressure and carbon (not to mention some luck with an honest gemologist) etc, and, of course, to help the relativist understand the absolute, or the absolutist understand the relative - faith in one or the other must often be the superordinate condition. The definiton of a point can support the definiton of parallel lines. But if you worship parallelism (like some gramatical purists), you cannot any longer see the points that give you your cherished inquiry as to whether or not they may touch at some infinitely extended distance 🙂 You may no longer see the forest from the trees, nor the trees from the forest.

How do you teach faith, that the person may comprehend the truth, be it a relative or an absolute truth we may have in question? One needs to familiarize oneself with the gospels, and with the teachings of the Church regarding it. As anyone reading these forums knows, there is not universal agreement on these teachings, all due respect to the steadfastness of the magesterium with.

You can end with conundrum: How do you teach faith in faith, and faith in that faith, and in yet that faith, and in that yet faith after all…ect. The recursive problem becomes enormous and unanswerable by ordinary human means. You need to Let Go to teach what you ask. Since you presumably have Let Go, please tell

Catholics know that the gospels change people! We need to read the gospel to those who ask, and teach it to those who need it but cannot ask.
 
Perplexity said:
I wonder how any proposed defenses of ‘absolute truth’ here fare against Aggripa’s trilemma:

For any claim you believe to be true, I’ll ask why you believe it’s true. At some point, you’ll end up doing one of the three: (i) repeating a reason you’ve already given and thus reasoning circularly, (ii) providing reasons on to infinity, in which case your belief is never actually justified, or (iii) merely assuming that it’s true, in which case you haven’t shown that your belief is true, even if we share the assumption.

Here’s an illustration:

Bob: “I reckon it’s gonna rain today.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “'Cause, them there clouds is rain clouds.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “Just look at 'em, can’t yer see 'em? They’re all heavy and dark like.”
Jim: “Why’dya think that?”
Bob: “'Cause I see 'em with my own eyes!”

Ooops…sorry Bob, you’ve already appealed to your visual apparatus, you’ve reasoned circularly. Try again:

Bob*: “Why do I think them there clouds is heavy and dark like?”
Jim: “Yup.”
Bob: “Well…I 'spose…I just do.”

Oooops…sorry Bob, now you’re just assuming your reason is true, that doesn’t actually show that it is.

etc.
Click to expand...
Here’s the annoying part.

So, what happens if we run Agrippa’s trilemma through itself? (tricky, I know, because it’s negative.)

In other words, is Agrippa’s trilemma absolutely true?

If yes, it disproves itself. If not, then it also disproves itself by leaving room for absolute truth.
 
Perplexity said:
I wonder how any proposed defenses of ‘absolute truth’ here fare against Aggripa’s trilemma:

For any claim you believe to be true, I’ll ask why you believe it’s true. At some point, you’ll end up doing one of the three: (i) repeating a reason you’ve already given and thus reasoning circularly, (ii) providing reasons on to infinity, in which case your belief is never actually justified, or (iii) merely assuming that it’s true, in which case you haven’t shown that your belief is true, even if we share the assumption.
Click to expand...
But this doesn’t actually say anything about whether or not the claim is true, only whether or not I’ve convinced you. It says that without some basic assumptions I can’t reason out whether or not anything is true, but that’s not a problem (or at least it’s a different problem) because the claim that there is truth does not include the idea that that truth should be able to be proven without assumptions.

Personally, I like the “annoying method” from LJH, although while I admit that it’s annoying I disagree with the statement that it’s circular.
 
Perplexity said:
I’ll ask why you believe it’s true.** At some point, you’ll end up doing one of the three:** (i) repeating a reason you’ve already given and thus reasoning circularly, (ii) providing reasons on to infinity, in which case your belief is never actually justified, or (iii) merely assuming that it’s true, in which case you haven’t shown that your belief is true, even if we share the assumption.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that?:rolleyes:
 
Okay guys, no offense, but I think I am just going to give up on philosophy right here and now. I am already lost. Sorry but I am just not the most intelligent cookie in the jar. 😛
 
Equites_Christi said:
Here’s the annoying part.

So, what happens if we run Agrippa’s trilemma through itself? (tricky, I know, because it’s negative.)

In other words, is Agrippa’s trilemma absolutely true?

If yes, it disproves itself. If not, then it also disproves itself by leaving room for absolute truth.
Click to expand...
Usually, the move is just to say Agrippa’s trilemma is the only claim exempt from this. But, I think if you’re gonna be an Agrippan skeptic…be one lol and just bite the bullet. (I’m certainly not one, I think there’s a very clever way to pull the rug out from under its feet)
 
I have an argument that disproves Agrippa’s trilemma. I can’t explain it to an idiot, though, and you’re an idiot if you don’t understand it.

Yay recursive logic.

Edit: I have been informed by my lovely wife that sarcasm doesn’t translate over the internet well. I am not intending to all anyone here an idiot, merely demonstrating that recursive logic can be used to prove or disprove anything.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am not good when it comes to philosophical matters so I decided to come on here and ask if someone could help me learn how to defend absolute truth from relativism? I am not wanting a debate, I just simply want to know the basics of how to defend absolute truth from relativism. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Law of non-Contradiction for one. Another approach is that relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hey everyone. I am not good when it comes to philosophical matters so I decided to come on here and ask if someone could help me learn how to defend absolute truth from relativism? I am not wanting a debate, I just simply want to know the basics of how to defend absolute truth from relativism. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Know first who you are, then by knowing who you are you can tell the truth about who the other person is. I’m not talking about your favorite color or even psychology. There is truth within a person that is absolute. It relates to the Virtue of the person. When you come to know that Virtue then you know yourself; and by knowing yourself you in turn know others. The body is truth and the truth was made to dwell within the body. It is there and becomes apparent when we see ourselves. It is like a mirror within. It is in our image from our reflection. We are reflective in nature and that reflection shows us ourselves; however it is the light of the truth that shines on the image of that reflection. By that insight we know we are flawed. Only through the Virtue, which is the light of the Truth, whom we become when we see the light, can we grasp at who we are.

Good and evil is not relative. Good and evil dwell within the body. It is within the knowledge of truth that they do so. Only one is not aware of the difference between the good and the evil until the light of truth dawns on them. In other words, the presence of good and evil is going to be the same no matter which body it dwells in. What is good in one body is good in another and what is evil in one is evil in another. Good and evil is part of nature and nature is absorbed into truth, just as all things are, making the truth infinite. Truth reflects the world and the world is in conflict therefore the truth is about conflict.
 
I don’t know if it’s worth trying to argue logically objective reality vs. subjective reality. To argue requires parties to agree on the definition of terms. I doubt that subjective realists will agree to define good, evil, right, wrong, etc. along theological lines. (I assume you would want to define them along those lines)

The best I would try to do is demonstrate that -some- truths are objective. If they can at least agree to that, then necessarily the statement ‘everything is relative’ is false.

The Socratic Method might help. Lemme give you a run-down, example argument comes from wikipedia.
  1. A guy arguing with Socrates says “courage is endurance of the soul”, a premise that Socrates doesn’t agree with.
  2. Rather than refute the argument with his own logical proofs, he asks this fellow to defend his assertion above. To do so, Socrates asks, and the guy agrees to both the statements “courage is a fine thing” and “ignorant endurance is not a fine thing.” (say, perhaps, working oneself to death for no reason - not a fine thing.)
  3. So Socrates says that courage cannot be endurance of the soul, because together the two statements imply that courage is not endurance of the soul. ‘Ignorant courage’ is a subset of ‘courage’.
(Courage) is (endurance) [of the soul]
(Fine thing) = (not fine thing) [of the soul] This is the same thing as saying 1=-1, which is false.

Mind you, Socrates hasn’t proven anything. He’s just demonstrating that this guy’s premise and reasoning is flawed. By doing this, you’re not showing that you’re right. But you’re showing that the other guy is wrong. It’s what attorney’s do when they examine witnesses.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Law of non-Contradiction for one. Another approach is that relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.
Click to expand...
It looks to me like you’re essentially implying that all atheists are necessarily relativists, and that therefore their position is indefensible. Am I right? Please clarify.
 
cho_pilo said:
It looks to me like you’re essentially implying that all atheists are necessarily relativists, and that therefore their position is indefensible. Am I right? Please clarify.
Click to expand...
No. Atheism has nothing to do with relativism or my comment. Though it leads to the same place as relativism, indifferentism but that’s another topic.
 
Trevor_Stamm said:
Law of non-Contradiction for one. Another approach is that relativism is indefensible, if someone tries to defend it, they have to use objective arguments and thus undermining their position. This is why relativism leads to indifferentism.
Click to expand...
Forgive my impatience; assuming that your conclusion, that relativism is self-refuting, depends on the assumption of a universe of discourse in which validity requires non-contradiction, the existence of paraconsistent-logically supported universes of discourses seems, to me, to render your own argument, however stated, a reductio of absolutism. In short, you appear to be engaged in an irreducibly question-begging endeavour.
 
cho_pilo said:
Forgive my impatience; assuming that your conclusion, that relativism is self-refuting, depends on the assumption of a universe of discourse in which validity requires non-contradiction, the existence of paraconsistent-logically supported universes of discourses seems, to me, to render your own argument, however stated, a reductio of absolutism. In short, you appear to be engaged in an irreducibly question-begging endeavour.
Click to expand...
Objectivity and absolutes are not presuppositions, they’re logical conclusions. If you’re stating the way I’m defeating relativism is begging the question of realism, you’re mistaken. Realism is a valid premise because logic leads to it. What is your contrast? Conceptualism and nominalism? Absurd ideas and completely indefensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top