The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[PDH]

Is relativism true?

If you answer 'yes,' then you have conceded the argument. Relativism is false because at least one statement - relativism itself - must be objectively true.

If you answer 'no,' then you've also conceded the argument. Relativism is false.

[Nacmir]

I don't understand what you mean by this sentence.

That it tries to understand existence but it does not prefigure existence, as it covers way more that the physical planes. I mean, it goes about existence but it does not grant existence. But as I said there, I may be very wrong as it is not my best area.

[Nacmir]

Is relativism true?

If you answer 'yes,' then you have conceded the argument. Relativism is false because at least one statement - relativism itself - must be objectively true.

If you answer 'no,' then you've also conceded the argument. Relativism is false.

It only works when you go binary on things, and it's precisely the point this teacher meant.

[PDH]

That it tries to understand existence but it does not prefigure existence, as it covers way more that the physical planes. I mean, it goes about existence but it does not grant existence. But as I said there, I may be very wrong as it is not my best area.

That doesn't really clear things up. Ontology is just the name we give to things that exist. Existence doesn't need to be granted, it's already there. If there are things other than the 'physical planes' whatever that is, then they are part of ontology, too. The question is just how to find out what exists, which is what epistemology is about.

People disagreeing about things is an epistemological problem not an ontological one. It doesn't in any way imply that there is no truth, only that not everybody knows what it is.

[PDH]

It only works when you go binary on things, and it's precisely the point this teacher meant.

No, the teacher's point was that 'absolutism' has done horrible things, therefore relativism must be...something. Whether that something happens to be 'morally good' or 'true' his argument was a self-contradiction. If relativism is true then there's nothing wrong - in any sense - with absolutism or with anything else for that matter, so his argument falls to pieces. Why would you be concerned about absolutism if you're a relativist? You can't think it's wrong because you don't believe that anything IS wrong.

In any case, the teacher's comments have nothing to do with the dilemma I gave above at all. Nor does the fact that it's binary a problem. All dilemmas are binary by definition. If there's a third option that I've missed, relativists are free to present it.

[Nacmir]

That doesn't really clear things up. Ontology is just the name we give to things that exist. Existence doesn't need to be granted, it's already there. If there are things other than the 'physical planes' whatever that is, then they are part of ontology, too. The question is just how to find out what exists, which is what epistemology is about.

People disagreeing about things is an epistemological problem not an ontological one. It doesn't in any way imply that there is no truth, only that not everybody knows what it is.

If existence were already there, Ontology wouldn't be necesary in first place. By means of ontology, we talk about existence, about what defines it.
People disagreeing about things become ontological when you talk about an abstract reality (truth) and assume it exists as a concept. If you say to me that this tree is green and I say it is red, it's the same, two coliding abstract conditions.

[PDH]

If existence were already there, Ontology wouldn't be necesary in first place. By means of ontology, we talk about existence, about what defines it.
People disagreeing about things become ontological when you talk about an abstract reality (truth) and assume it exists as a concept. If you say to me that this tree is green and I say it is red, it's the same, two coliding abstract conditions.

It's not the concept that I'm talking about, it's the referent.

Your map might say there's a cliff in front of us, mine might say that there isn't but there is a fact of the matter about this, regardless of our differing interpretations. Take a few more steps and this will become clear.

There is a difference between the map and the territory. The territory does not change, no matter what it says on the map (though remember, of course, that the map is also a part of the territory).

[PDH]

And it's a straw-man argument to present all opponents of relativism as 'absolutists,' as if those were the only two options. I'm a Bayesian. Knowledge is probabilistic. I don't believe in absolute certainty.

But uncertainty is epistemic - it exists in the map, not in the territory. If you are uncertain about something, that is a fact about your mind, it is not a fact about the thing of which you are uncertain.

There is a right answer, even if you don't know what it is.

[Nacmir]

No, the teacher's point was that 'absolutism' has done horrible things, therefore relativism must be...something. Whether that something happens to be 'morally good' or 'true' his argument was a self-contradiction. If relativism is true then there's nothing wrong - in any sense - with absolutism or with anything else for that matter, so his argument falls to pieces. Why would you be concerned about absolutism if you're a relativist? You can't think it's wrong because you don't believe that anything IS wrong.

In any case, the teacher's comments have nothing to do with the dilemma I gave above at all. Nor does the fact that it's binary a problem. All dilemmas are binary by definition. If there's a third option that I've missed, relativists are free to present it.

It was not related to our arguments, it was a response to Victorian Squid.

I don't believe in absolute wrong and absolute right, that doesn't mean I can think about history and some effect of certain mindsets.

There is a third option: sometimes. it grants you the possibility of considering things true and false without contradicting yourself.

[PDH]

It was not related to our arguments, it was a response to Victorian Squid.

I don't believe in absolute wrong and absolute right, that doesn't mean I can think about history and some effect of certain mindsets.

There is a third option: sometimes. it grants you the possibility of considering things true and false without contradicting yourself.

It means that you can't say that absolutism is wrong without contradiction. If there's no right or wrong, then there can't be anything wrong with absolutism. Likewise, if there's no truth, relativism can't be true.

But ethics and epistemology have to be kept separate. It could be, for example, that morality doesn't exist but that wouldn't mean that there weren't reliable ways to find out what the truth is. And even if there weren't it still wouldn't follow that there is no truth.

You're conflating three different things here: meta-ethics, epistemology and ontology. Evidence against one is not necessarily evidence against the others.

[Nacmir]

And it's a straw-man argument to present all opponents of relativism as 'absolutists,' as if those were the only two options. I'm a Bayesian. Knowledge is probabilistic. I don't believe in absolute certainty.

But uncertainty is epistemic - it exists in the map, not in the territory. If you are uncertain about something, that is a fact about your mind, it is not a fact about the thing of which you are uncertain.

There is a right answer, even if you don't know what it is.

I'm not presenting you as absolutist, you are presenting yourself as that as your responses are absolutes, things are either right or wrong.

I find somewhat problematic to do a call about uncertainty and then go again for the term "right".

[Nacmir]

It means that you can't say that absolutism is wrong without contradiction. If there's no right or wrong, then there can't be anything wrong with absolutism. Likewise, if there's no truth, relativism can't be true.

But ethics and epistemology have to be kept separate. It could be, for example, that morality doesn't exist but that wouldn't mean that there weren't reliable ways to find out what the truth is. And even if there weren't it still wouldn't follow that there is no truth.

You're conflating three different things here: meta-ethics, epistemology and ontology. Evidence against one is not necessarily evidence against the others.

You can say it is wrong purely based on the extent of evil it has done, look you obvious it is that even someone that doesn't believe in evil consider it evil.

It is somewhat imposible to separate them as you couldn'd to ethics without the whole good/bad discution which is very ontological on nature.

Existence of morallity: ontological or meta-ethics? That was the "other realms" point I was trying to make about ontology.

[PDH]

I'm not presenting you as absolutist, you are presenting yourself as that as your responses are absolutes, things are either right or wrong.

I find somewhat problematic to do a call about uncertainty and then go again for the term "right".

With respect, you're not getting my central point. The uncertainty is in the map, not the territory. I am uncertain about what the truth is, that doesn't mean that the truth itself is uncertain. You keep mistaking one for the other.

If you don't know what lies across the ocean so you write, 'Here, thar be dragons,' on your map, that doesn't mean that there are actually dragons there. If you are confused about something, that is a fact about your mind, it is not a fact about the thing of which you are confused.

I can be 99% certain that something is right, or 90% or 75% etc. but the truth itself does not change.

[PDH]

You can say it is wrong purely based on the extent of evil it has done, look you obvious it is that even someone that doesn't believe in evil consider it evil.

You can say that but it would be a meaningless statement if you're a relativist. If there is no right or wrong then it hasn't done any evil because there is no evil. A person who asserts both that X is evil and that there is no such thing as evil has contradictory beliefs.

It is somewhat imposible to separate them as you couldn'd to ethics without the whole good/bad discution which is very ontological on nature.

My main point was that you can believe that

A) there is no such thing as moral right or moral wrong

and

B) the statement '2+2=5' is wrong.

2+2=5 is not morally wrong, it's just wrong.

Existence of morallity: ontological or meta-ethics? That was the "other realms" point I was trying to make about ontology.

Yes, but is your complaint an epistemological one or an ontological one? Are you saying that there are moral facts but we don't know what they are? Or are you saying that there aren't any moral facts?

If, as I suspect, it's the latter then you have to do more than point out that people sometimes disagree with each other. It doesn't follow from that there are no moral facts. And, by the way, I don't necessarily think that there are moral facts, not in that sense but that argument just doesn't work.

I'm more interested in the other kind of wrong. You also seemed to argue that there is no truth, period, because people disagree with each other. That is something that I do take issue with and it's wrong for the same reason. You've not shown that there is no truth, only that some people are ignorant of it.

[Nacmir]

With respect, you're not getting my central point. The uncertainty is in the map, not the territory. I am uncertain about what the truth is, that doesn't mean that the truth itself is uncertain. You keep mistaking one for the other.

If you don't know what lies across the ocean so you write, 'Here, thar be dragons,' on your map, that doesn't mean that there are actually dragons there. If you are confused about something, that is a fact about your mind, it is not a fact about the thing of which you are confused.

I can be 99% certain that something is right, or 90% or 75% etc. but the truth itself does not change.

You do "uncertainty" once. I do it twice, as I don't believe in a specific and static truth that can be approached: terriory change, map change.
We differ. Life goes on.