Relativism: the Challenge

[Amandil]

It doesn’t fudge anything. It helps to explain the difference between itself and normative relativism. It’s not ‘an idea’ but a philosophic description (the clue is in the name).

The “philosophic description” necessarily originated from a mind, thus it is an idea. That you ascribe a multi-syllabic term to it does not make it any more than an idea.

It describes the fact that different societies for example have different values relative to others. It is not a value judgement - it just describes what it.

Nor did I say that they were “value judgments”, I said that it confuses objective morality with value opinions about morality.

Anthropological assumptions have no business in regards to the truth or falsehood of relativism. Anthropology is not the science of morality, ethics is.

If you are going to go off like a fire cracker every time someone mentions an activity that you don’t personally approve, then we are all going to get bogged down very quickly.

Looks like someone seems to be projecting…

 

[Bradski]

---

I said that it confuses objective morality with value opinions about morality.

Well at least now you know it doesn’t do that.

 

[Amandil]

You are forgetting one very basic and important factor–how people’s own bodies run, temperature wise. Some people are warmer and always opening windows…some are colder and always wearing an extra sweater.

This is simply not true. Healthy people’s internal temperature is (generally) consistent at 98.6 +/- a few tenths of a degree. Their surface skin temperature is around 85.

Their differences of “feeling” warmer or colder are due to extraneous factors, not drastic variations in body temperature.

And that, I believe, is a good support for what you call “relativism”. People are born differently and need different things.

Nobody was ever born that didn’t need food or water or air to live. Your use of the word “need” needs to be qualified.

 

[Bradski]

And that, I believe, is a good support for what you call “relativism”. People are born differently and need different things.

And the word ‘is’. What you mean depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.

 

[Nihilist]

But regardless “Object X” is. It exists objectively.

But the problem in both their systems is that within their systems there is no possible way they could know either way.

They are (objectively) saying that “it is unknown”(Kant), or that that it (objectively)“doesn’t exist”(Berkeley).

That’s the problem with any appeal to relativism or subjectivism; you are making the objective statement that “X” is. Thus even in practice relativism is negated.

OK, let’s dump the term “Object X”. Let call it, more accurate, “The-bunch-of-sensations X”

Now, you (and many) view it one way, I (and many) view it another. Hence, there is no objective truth, or even if there is it, is in accessible. Therefore, what the objectivists say is relative. Thus they contradict themselves. But, a relativist freely admits that the saying “It’s all relative”, is only a relative truth. Because, after all, it’s ALL RELATIVE.

God alone is Truth. But when we ask the name of Truth, He says, “Ask not my name, for it is wonderful”. These are things no eyes has seen. The human perceptions are entirely relative- just a bunch of sensations. Let’s just accept our ignorance, and instead trust the words of Christ.

The wise know nothing except for the fat that they know nothing. And they are not even sure of this…

 

[Bahman]

Relativism: the Challenge

As per the case that Elton Trueblood poses in his book The Philosophy of Religion, explaining the difference between relativism and objectivism can be approached this way.

Two men are in separate rooms of a three room house. Each room in the house has a separate thermostat control. One of the men is in a room with 90 degrees of heat. The other is in a room set at 50 degrees. They both enter simultaneously a room between them set at 70 degrees. The man from the cold room finds this room warm. The man from the hot room finds this room cool.

The argument of the relativist is that this proves the relativity of room temperatures per the individual’s personal experience. The argument of the objectivist is that the third room is neither hot nor cold, but set at a an objectively tolerable temperature. However, there is a caveat. The objectivist argues that you have to stay in that room and let your body study the real temperature long enough to find out that it is objectively tolerable, neither too warm nor too cool.

The relativist should answer this argument. How does he answer it? Is relativism the final way to judge the truth about anything, that truth is what you feel it is; or is there an objective truth independent of what anyone might sense at a given moment that is waiting to be found both by the objectivist and the relativist?

What say you?

Things in regard to thought are objective irrespective and in regard to feeling are objectively relative.