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

[Trevor_Stamm]

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.

I don’t know how to make this anymore clear, by the mere and simple fact you are demanding an argument, which requires logic and objectivity through premises and conclusion, is my proof that relativism is false. You are asking for objectivity from someone other then yourself, indirectly demonstrating that you acknowledge truth exists outside your own mind. If you truly were relative, you would not be asking for me to “prove” anything but would ultimately express “your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth, it’s all relative.”

 

[Alterum]

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.

This caught my eye. It looks like a simplification of something a fellow named Bonjour famously argued against foundationalist epistemologies. You should infer from the trilemma that the theory of truth (or of justification) it presupposes is absurd, viz., that any certain belief must be demonstrable from demonstrable first principles. Obviously that leads to a vicious infinite regress.

 

[Michael19682]

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.

How’s this Holly: all absolutists are relativists because they cannot agree on the absolute, and all relativists are absolutists because they agree on the absoluteness of relativism

bye bye

 

[cho_pilo]

I don’t know how to make this anymore clear,

Step one: is this an accurate statement of your argument:

1. relativism and the principle of non-contradiction, are incompatible
2. any argument offered in support of relativism will need to rely on the principle of non-contradiction
3. therefore, any argument offered in support of relativism will be inconsistent.

If “yes”, then go on to step two:

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.

If “no”, then please clearly state what your argument is. That means give numbered premises, attempt to establish the plausibility of those premises, and state how your conclusion is entailed.

the mere and simple fact you are demanding an argument, which requires logic and objectivity through premises and conclusion, is my proof that relativism is false. You are asking for objectivity from someone other then yourself, indirectly demonstrating that you acknowledge truth exists outside your own mind.

Is not an argument, it’s waffle.

Next, step three:

You will need to explain what “indifferentism” is and defend a premise, which in conjunction with your first argument, entails your second conclusion.

Because:

as things stand, you haven’t shown that relativism is indefensible and you haven’t shown that it

 

[Micorhizea]

This here might help you. It’s a slide show explaining absolute truth.

Despite a right conclusion, which nevertheless needs some context, the argument leading up to it has some gut wrenching semantic errors. The author is not someone I would choose as an instructor in epistemology, general semantics, or critical thinking. No.

 

[grannymh]

Despite a right conclusion, which nevertheless needs some context, the argument leading up to it has some gut wrenching semantic errors. The author is not someone I would choose as an instructor in epistemology, general semantics, or critical thinking. No.

I started wondering about the semantics of the thread title. To me, the word “relativism” refers to subjective reasoning and the words “absolute truth” refers to objective truth and consequently objective reasoning.

I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute. Is this another example of poor semantics?

 

[Micorhizea]

I started wondering about the semantics of the thread title. To me, the word “relativism” refers to subjective reasoning and the words “absolute truth” refers to objective truth and consequently objective reasoning.

I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute. Is this another example of poor semantics?

Yours is a good question, Grannymh. Thanks. There was a time I would have completely agreed with you. But then my experiential understanding of “objective” and “subjective” changed radically. ( You know the root meaning of that word, I’m sure.) I do maintain that in the paradigm from which most people live, regardless of creed or culture, that makes good sense. But your question excludes, or very much to me, seems to, the interior life of the contemplative.

That, though even across cultures and religions tends to end in the same place, still has the idea attached to it in many cases that it has to be measured against “objective” reality, or an "objective’ standard or doctrine. Past a certain point, I would say from my own experience and having compared notes over many decades about this, that idea of an objective perspective has to go out of the window or failure, at least incompletion, is the result for something that could, and does, yield for many an ineffable, but putable, result.

But dissimilar from “proofs” of God that build up to or seem to require (they can’t) a result necessitating belief, these experiences I speak of happen, and then are analysed by those who have them. What is remarkable is that though they are totally subjective in nature, they can’t be anything else, they appear to fulfill the scientific requirement of repeatability. And that repeatability occurs regardless of any circumstance relating to age, culture, geography, health, economic status, religion or lack of it, or any other circumstance. So I must conclude that it is hard wired in, similar to the idea that we are created in the image and likeness of God.

If that is true, that we are in His image and likeness, then any interior excursion must be ultimately subjective, as it explores the question “What am I” whether it is blatantly and consciously stated that way, or as a desire to know God totally. And again, this is something that is discernible whether the contemplator is Catholic, eg, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Meister Ekhart, Bernadette Roberts, or a host of others, or someone of another religion than ours, or philosophy, or even none at all. Grace appears to be independent of creed, as goodness is independent of moral dictums and dogmas.

So your question, from my perspective, hinges on what “fulcrum” of interior life one has tipped. Each such level includes and transcends the previous, as molecules include but transcend atoms, etc. An analogy in this way can be made of states, as well. Some have written about them with both scholastic thoroughness and poetic beauty. Lovely

Thanks for your question.

 

[grannymh]

Yours is a good question, Grannymh. Thanks. There was a time I would have completely agreed with you. But then my experiential understanding of “objective” and “subjective” changed radically. ( You know the root meaning of that word, I’m sure.) I do maintain that in the paradigm from which most people live, regardless of creed or culture, that makes good sense. But your question excludes, or very much to me, seems to, the interior life of the contemplative.

I see now that I was too brief in my statement: “I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute.” (from post 45) While I maintain that objective reasoning is the best way to defend an absolute truth, I should have left the door open to understanding truth both objectively *and *subjectively. That is my error.

Thank you for the rest of your post in which my gut instinct sees some places where both objective and subjective perspectives might be used. For example, regarding the spiritual which includes God and the interior life of the contemplative. Yes, I know that gut instinct is subjective which sees God is an objective reality Who does not depend on scientific theories to affirm His existence. Beyond this, I do not know enough about the contemplative life to really discuss it. I do know that relativism should not be used in determining what is truth; however, subjective thinking can aid in the understanding of truth and in some instances find objective truth.

In conclusion, because of the complexity of objective and subjective approaches, I, personally find it very difficult to answer the OP question in our culture which values relativism, utilitarianism and similar.

 

[grannymh]

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.

Being the most intelligent cookie in the jar is second to being the cookie who uses all the chocolate chips she has to love God.

Sometimes, the best defense for absolute truth is to live one’s life according to the absolute truth of God’s existence. To paraphrase a philosophical saying of Descartes – I believe; therefore, I act accordingly.

Blessings,
granny

“The shepherds sing; and shall I silent be?”
from the poem “Christmas” by George Herbert

 

[Micorhizea]

I see now that I was too brief in my statement: “I would offer that any truth has to be dealt with objectively and not subjectively in order to be defended as absolute.” (from post 45) While I maintain that objective reasoning is the best way to defend an absolute truth, I should have left the door open to understanding truth both objectively *and *subjectively. That is my error.

Thank you for the rest of your post in which my gut instinct sees some places where both objective and subjective perspectives might be used. For example, regarding the spiritual which includes God and the interior life of the contemplative. Yes, I know that gut instinct is subjective which sees God is an objective reality Who does not depend on scientific theories to affirm His existence. Beyond this, I do not know enough about the contemplative life to really discuss it. I do know that relativism should not be used in determining what is truth; however, subjective thinking can aid in the understanding of truth and in some instances find objective truth.

In conclusion, because of the complexity of objective and subjective approaches, I, personally find it very difficult to answer the OP question in our culture which values relativism, utilitarianism and similar.

Have you any idea how wonderful it is to ind someone on here to talk with? I know for my own part that much of what I say is flawed in some way, but that is the hazzard of speaking. But there is teleology!

One of the most interesting passages I’ve read regarding this is in Ken Wilber"s A Brief History of Everything, in which he addresses the need to develop a language of the interior that is more congruent with the broad range of mystic’s and contemplative’s exegesis of their experiences. For me a good example is a triangle formed of, say our profound contemplative, Bernadette Roberts, Franklin Merrel-Wolff, and Ramana Maharshi. There are many slippery words, such as “I/me,” “self/Self,” and being/Being" which would bear the scrutiny of an investigation as easily and perhaps more profoundly than the discipline of comparative religion.

And yet, of course, there is much merit and necessity to the idea of absolute. But even here there are some shades and nuances of considerations regarding subjective/objective, which FM-W addresses in a very scholarly way. But books might be, and have been written about such things, so I don’t need to write one here, lol!

It is very nice to chat with you. Sometimes differences make noise, and sometimes they make music. So far ours seems more like the latter. Very refreshing on here!

M

 

[grannymh]

Have you any idea how wonderful it is to ind someone on here to talk with? I know for my own part that much of what I say is flawed in some way, but that is the hazzard of speaking. But there is teleology!

Yes, I do know the value of talking with someone. Often in posts, I am explaining Catholicism. That’s life on CAF. However, it is also good to chat with someone and not be too concerned about differences in worldviews.

My drawback is that I am not familiar with contemporary writing. Yet, I recognize the importance of the language of the interior. Long ago, I read Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila. As I recall, this was due to a writer’s view that contemplation can be part of everyone’s life. I would think that the book *Peace in Every Step *(That may not be the title) could have addressed interior language not as a topic but by example.
Note to self: see if that book is still on the shelf where I think it is.

Can the “language of the interior” be universal in that it is accepted by a variety of religions. In that sense, it could be more profound than the discipline of comparative religion. Can it help when one deals with an absolute truth as in this thread’s title?

The clock tells me I have to go…

 

[Micorhizea]

Yes, I do know the value of talking with someone. Often in posts, I am explaining Catholicism. That’s life on CAF. However, it is also good to chat with someone and not be too concerned about differences in worldviews.

My drawback is that I am not familiar with contemporary writing. Yet, I recognize the importance of the language of the interior. Long ago, I read Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila. As I recall, this was due to a writer’s view that contemplation can be part of everyone’s life. I would think that the book *Peace in Every Step *(That may not be the title) could have addressed interior language not as a topic but by example.
Note to self: see if that book is still on the shelf where I think it is.

Can the “language of the interior” be universal in that it is accepted by a variety of religions. In that sense, it could be more profound than the discipline of comparative religion. Can it help when one deals with an absolute truth as in this thread’s title?

The clock tells me I have to go…

Thank you for your well thought out considerations.

There is much contemporary writing on the topic, and much more than used to be available even “about” 40 years ago. Had it bee as readily present as today, I may not have had the serious contention with the Church that I’m only now overcoming, sort of sideways and through the back door.

I have a fond and great respect for such as Teresa of Avila, someone who, along with St. John of the Cross, Meister Ekhart, and a number of others I was not directed to in the midst of a word changing spiritual crisis, even by several “spiritual counselors” I heavily consulted. Nor did I find them–or perhaps recognize them–on Catholic bookshelves you can be sure I perused.

As for a “language of the interior” that is universal, here are my thoughts. Since God is a Universal, and we are made in His image and likeness, with or without a paritcular faith or philosophy, and that includes atheism and agnosticism, people from all ages and cultures have reported trans formative experiences. For example, the cross cultural study of NDEs yields a common pattern of events, if not their contents, that being obviously culturally determined, unlike the steps and nature of the experience itself. In terms of mysticism, we have a similar difficulty, but less so in the realm of contemplation not diverted into the phenomenology of the mystic. One might say that a contemplative, imho, is a mystic who “got over.”

In that realm, the limited survey I’ve made relative to my experience reveals that there are great commonalities in conditions, considerations, and especially and mostly in conclusions. That is despite what appears as diverse use of language (necessarily, since some are translations and grammars differ in world view themselves) there seems to be a core similarity of experience over time, conditions, and culture.

As for the language, we are only now in a communication dynamic which allows the sharing of information, which in this regard, has mostly been hidden. Given my experience with attempting to anchor my sanity after what happened to me, I can readily understand. In a rare and more village like environment, I do not doubt that a competent adept might recognize a transformation of any kind. But we are not so fortunate these days. But now we have the internet “village” and can seek our own kind, so to speak, or at least get some assurance that we are not alone in our behavior and conclusions that make us feel like a pink monkey amongst the gray ones.

So I was completely thrilled when I started reading Bernadette Roberts! Her was a Catholic contemplative, still living, who is able to exquisitely delineate such an experience in thinkable terms relative to Church teaching. How rare is that? I am sort of convinced that Avila and some others felt constraints on the fullness of what they could say. Bur BR has none such, thank goodness! And consequently, despite her authenticity, those who cannot or will not admit of that specialized kind of knowledge by identity, as I call it, have raised a ruckus about what she says.

So be it. She’s the genuine article in my book. God bless her and all of us.

 

[1AugustSon7]

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!

I am. If you think that I am not, then you are an existential threat to my existence, because you think that I am nothing. Likewise reversed.

It’s not a coincidence that the denial of absolute truth coincides with murder and death (what inevitably follows from someone who has literally and completely denied absolute truth): the atheist who believes everything is just indistinguishable matter; and that, consequently, I am indistinguishable from a product of his imagination, becomes anti-social and outright dangerous. Ideologies that tend to this way of thinking are usually also the most murderous.

Relativism, then, ultimately makes everyone and everything irrelevant. Such a world is an anarchist’s Disney Land.

 

[grannymh]

As for a “language of the interior” that is universal, here are my thoughts. Since God is a Universal, and we are made in His image and likeness, with or without a particular faith or philosophy, and that includes atheism and agnosticism, people from all ages and cultures have reported trans formative experiences.

The concept that we are made in the image of God, especially with your addition “with or without a particular faith or philosophy, and that includes atheism and agnosticism…” makes me rethink that the language of the interior may not be quite universal. What is universal is our human ability to recognize that the supernatural does exist separately from our natural environment. The supernatural exists independently of people’s affirmation. I see human nature objectively; however, it can also be viewed subjectively.

For example, the cross cultural study of NDEs yields a common pattern of events, if not their contents, that being obviously culturally determined, unlike the steps and nature of the experience itself. In terms of mysticism, we have a similar difficulty, but less so in the realm of contemplation not diverted into the phenomenology of the mystic. One might say that a contemplative, imho, is a mystic who “got over.”

Not sure what “got over” refers to. Will you please explain further?

As for the language, we are only now in a communication dynamic which allows the sharing of information, which in this regard, has mostly been hidden. Given my experience with attempting to anchor my sanity after what happened to me, I can readily understand. In a rare and more village like environment, I do not doubt that a competent adept might recognize a transformation of any kind. But we are not so fortunate these days. But now we have the internet “village” and can seek our own kind, so to speak, or at least get some assurance that we are not alone in our behavior and conclusions that make us feel like a pink monkey amongst the gray ones.

I looked up adept in the dictionary to understand your usage of the word. Interesting thought that it referred to “changing” base metals into gold. That is quite a transformation.
Think of the Resurrection as transforming [our] death into glorified eternal life.

I am hung up on the word absolute. To me, it would be an absolute truth that human nature consists of a material anatomy and a rational, spiritual, intellective soul. However, this would not mean that whatever we perceive is actual spiritual truth.
Our minds are both limited and unlimited when it comes to the possibility of the supernatural.

The Catholic Church is really like a rock in that there is a strong foundation for the spiritual life which is the presence of Jesus Christ. Yes, I know that Jesus called Peter the rock; nonetheless when we sit quietly, we can know many applications of “rock”. I wish I knew the scripture reference for “Be still and know that I am God.”

So I was completely thrilled when I started reading Bernadette Roberts! Her was a Catholic contemplative, still living, who is able to exquisitely delineate such an experience in thinkable terms relative to Church teaching. How rare is that? I am sort of convinced that Avila and some others felt constraints on the fullness of what they could say. Bur BR has none such, thank goodness! And consequently, despite her authenticity, those who cannot or will not admit of that specialized kind of knowledge by identity, as I call it, have raised a ruckus about what she says.

So be it. She’s the genuine article in my book. God bless her and all of us.

I am grateful you found someone you can understand and relate to. A good method for discerning what someone says is to check it with Catholic doctrines.

The absolute truth that we are in the image of God opens up so very many possibilities.

 

[grannymh]

I am. If you think that I am not, then you are an existential threat to my existence, because you think that I am nothing. Likewise reversed.

It’s not a coincidence that the denial of absolute truth coincides with murder and death (what inevitably follows from someone who has literally and completely denied absolute truth): the atheist who believes everything is just indistinguishable matter; and that, consequently, I am indistinguishable from a product of his imagination, becomes anti-social and outright dangerous. Ideologies that tend to this way of thinking are usually also the most murderous.

Relativism, then, ultimately makes everyone and everything irrelevant. Such a world is an anarchist’s Disney Land.

May I add that the reason that relativism can make everything else irrelevant is that relativism makes each individual the supreme judge according to her or his own subjective perceptions.

 

[Micorhizea]

May I add that the reason that relativism can make everything else irrelevant is that relativism makes each individual the supreme judge according to her or his own subjective perceptions.

That appears to be a credible stance, but I would question then if the choice of one’s religion or philosophy doesn’t put one in the same category as supreme judge, even if their religion included an “objective” Supreme Judge. Boolean math, anyone?

And if someone claims for themselves even complete subjectivity, if they operate competently in the world, wouldn’t some of their “subjectivity” necessarily coincide with “absolutes?”

This bears more explication, I’m sure, but this note is submitted under a time constraint.

M

 

[Charlemagne_II]

August
**
Relativism, then, ultimately makes everyone and everything irrelevant. Such a world is an anarchist’s Disney Land. **

An anarchist’s Disney Land would be a place where the pleasures are what you want them to be. Unfortunately, Walt Disney would not allow that to be so. Disney Land is objectively ordered to please different tastes, yes, in the same way that Howard Johnson designed different ice creams. Different strokes for different folks. But the underlying objectivity of ice cream remains, as does the underlying objectivity of a pleasure play land.

Knowledge and morality and beauty follow the same plan. Different strokes for different folks. But some types of knowledge are necessarily destructive, while others are creative. Some types of morality are evil while others are necessarily good. Some objects of art are pleasing and others intentionally ugly. Evil morality cannot be made good just by the moral anarchist’s say-so. Destructive knowledge cannot be made creative just by the scholar’s say-so. An ugly object cannot be made beautiful just by the critic’s say-so. Things are what they are. People cannot disagree until doomsday about that too. But there are people who are perversely, and do not see things as they ought to be seen in their own objective reality. That is why those who pervert morality and knowledge and art love relativism. It validates their respective perversions.

 

[Micorhizea]

I would like to hear from those who regularly use the words “absolute” and “relativism” exactly what they mean. I went to the Catholic Encyclopedia and they don’t quite match a number of statements on here. And no, I won’t do an index of those. Moreover, despite the credibility of such a work as the CE, I do not see either a convincing consistency nor a completeness in many key areas foundational to the arguments it puts forth. I am sorry if anyone finds it offensive, but even the conscience I developed during my many years in the Catholic school system can’t completely align with key elements of what I read there, either due to its form or its omission. So if someone wishes to clarify what they themselves mean by these terms, I’d like to hear it. Thank you for your effort, should you choose to make it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Mic

I would like to hear from those who regularly use the words “absolute” and “relativism” exactly what they mean.

Go to any encyclopedia of philosophy and you will see pretty much the same definitions given in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don’t know why you are having a problem here. Is it because you are a relativist and you are looking for an argument?

Do you think it is absolutely wrong to deliberately kill a child, or do you think it’s sometimes o.k. and sometimes not o.k., relative to the situation?

 

[Micorhizea]

Mic

I would like to hear from those who regularly use the words “absolute” and “relativism” exactly what they mean.

Go to any encyclopedia of philosophy and you will see pretty much the same definitions given in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

I don’t know why you are having a problem here. Is it because you are a relativist and you are looking for an argument?

Do you think it is absolutely wrong to deliberately kill a child, or do you think it’s sometimes o.k. and sometimes not o.k., relative to the situation?

Exodus 12~29 At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

Being knowledgeable in our faith, you also know that our God also ordered the genocide of tribes of His own children in Israel, among whom surely there were babies. So killing children is only absolutely OK, but not relatively? 'splain please.