Relativism is the philosophy which asserts that there is no absolute or objective truth. Friedrich Nietzsche, the father of Perspectivism and arguably a forerunner of Relativism, said that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. In his enigmatic books, he argued that humans beings do not find values, but invent them. Postmodernism, too, seems to be premised on this principle. Is it true that there is no absolute truth and that morality is man-made? What are the consequences of this school of thought for humanity?
If there is some objective truth out there I’d like to see you prove it…
I’m with Ben.
The notion that somewhere in the universe there is a filing cabinet with all the objective truths in alphabetical order is absurd.
How about this statement:
Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Austraia.
Is that not objectively true?
Is that not a fact but only an interpretation?
Can you prove that Kevin Rudd is the prime minister?
Yes, all the evidence supports this conclusion. If we conducted the most rigorous scientific inquiry into the identity of the PM, we would find it is indisputably Kevin Rudd.
Most philosophers agree that even science cannot conclusively prove something is objectively true. We can’t even prove we exist. Descartes tried to and failed.
Can I suggest, Zac, that the issue here is not so much our ability to be confident that something is true (we are 100% confident that Rudd is PM), but your conception of proof. It’s no wonder that you claim that nothing can be proved if you reject even the most convincing, incontrovertible evidence. Indeed, a person who cannot be persuaded that Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister cannot be persuaded of anything.
It is a very interesting philosophy which declares that Kevin Rudd is not (or may not be) Prime Minister.
Besides, Relativism is self-refuting for if nothing is true, nor is Relativism. Bewilderingly, according to Relativism, Relativism is as true as its antithesis, Objectivism. It is probably the only philosophy yet to be devised by Man that needs no refutation: it refutes itself by its very assertion.
I believe there are two related but different issues under discussion here. Firstly, the original issue of Relativism and secondly, the issue of knowledge and how we come by to acquire (or verify) it.
It must be noted that the essence of Relativism is in refuting the common principle of bivalence(something can only be true or false).
Relativism states that a claim such as “This house is big” is not objectively true (or objectively false) as it depends whether it is seen through the eyes of an ant, a child or a grown man.
When demanding a proof that Kevin Rudd is the PM, Zac, you diverted from the Relativist position and established yourself as a skeptic, and opened a debate about epistemology.
However, regardless of whether our senses deceive us or not (namely, we think Kevin Rudd is the PM but really it is John Howard in a costume), the statement “Kevin Rudd is the Prime Minister of Australia.” is still either TRUE or FALSE - there is no relativity about it, and this contradicts the values of Relativism.
OMG - is this question for real? Is relativism true, well if yes, then no, because if relativism is true then there is no truth.
And the commentary seems not to understand that there is a difference between truth and facts.
Of course there is truth. This is just a stupid question. The real question is, can we perceive it. I can certainly try. Adopting relativism just means you haven’t got the heart and strength to try any more.
How sad is that?
Andrew,
I agree with you that relativism being true is self-contradictory.
Can you please elaborate on what you perceive to be the difference between truth and facts? I mean, if something is true, is it not a fact? If something is a fact, is it not true? After all, ‘fact’ is defined as ‘truth’.
I understand your point that we may not be able to perceive the truth, but how is that different from saying that we may not be able to perceive the facts about our world?
i would love someone to explain to me that if relativism is true, what impact does it have on anything besides the sale of philosophy textbooks?
“I’m with Ben.
The notion that somewhere in the universe there is a filing cabinet with all the objective truths in alphabetical order is absurd.”
- As a Christian, I would identify that filing cabinet as God.
Justin,
If relativism is true we loose any justification for morality, certainty becomes impossible, and it becomes impossible to apply any “truth to you” to anyone else.
Not only that, if relativism were true - that is, “if the situation that no objective truths exist” was itself true, we would live in a self-refuting world.
All up, it would be both an undesirable, as well as irrational situation.
‘A = A’ seems to be a true statement.
Is there a way to define an objective truth, an irrefutable truth, something proved, something agreed upon and certain? there are not many people who can argue that the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun.
However in pre-gallileo time’s it was objective truth that the sun revolved around the earth. It was irrefutable, it was proven by science and certain.
However the thought for the day is, how can the objective truth’s change?
No, the sun revolving around the earth was and is still clearly an objective falsehood =) But that’s my opinion - I guess we’re here to debate whether or not a largely held believe can be said to be true. I think not.
The statement “Seinfeld is funny” is invalid.
What i really mean when i say that is “Seinfeld is funny [to me]“.
I must qualify it with [to me] because humour is SUBJECTIVE.
—
Now suppose…
The statement “An apple is sitting on that table” is invalid.
What i really mean when i say that is “An apple is sitting on that table [to me].”
People will argue the difference between the two is one is SUBJECTIVE and one is OBJECTIVE. But i propose that even objects (such as an apple) are SUBJECTIVE.
—
Imagine there are only two people in the world. One man sees an apple on the table. The other sees an orange. Even if one man was crazy, no matter what he does (eg touches it, eats it) it is still a reality to him because his perception of reality is “warped” (even though there is no way of telling that because the other man might be the crazy one).
We now have two realities or “truths”. And both are equally as valid without a magical truth machine to reveal to us “the one true… truth”. (or as i like to call him - God).
**Therefore there is no one single absolute “truth”, but many.
And even though it’s human nature to believe in an absolute truth (as society would not function otherwise), the only way you could reject the concept of multiple truths is to either find fault in this logic, or prove that there is a God.
Relativism itself is not absolute.
Truths are made up of truths and untruths.
Absolutism does not exist, but universalism does.
I think relativism falls short to consider the fact that regardless of separate and subjective ideas, that when all pieced together with contradictions against each other, ideas by ideas against ideas, then you have the bigger picture, that is although not all, much more than the separate entity of thought by one relativist. This is a somewhat similar notion to Constructivism.
Daise,
Thanks for your comment. I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say “Absolutism does not exist, but universalism does”. In your opinion, are there objectively true statements or not?
Sorry Liron, I wasn’t very clear in my response.
Here is a better attempt:
Relativism is itself only an interpretation, (following it’s theory) and thereby only accountable for a part of a whole truth. For instance, if you were to ask two spectators to recount a crime scene, the stories will ultimately vary to some extent. Therefore the truth is somehow obscure and hard to find the objective. However, this does not simply mean that truths don’t exist because our systems of interpretation are flawed. Perhaps in this scenario, we are unable to find the whole “absolute” story or “truth”, but there are truths within the story. It is most likely that both spectators will verify the place of the crime, the time perhaps, the procedure, and both will have felt a similar emotion, say if it was a burglary, well then the emotion of fear, or anxiety, panic, that is a universal reactionary emotion. In this case, there are universal elements which humans alike share, whether it be biological, human instincts, survival mechanisms, or development procedures, and we share the same common nature, day, night, water, earth, time, life, death, etc. In this sense, these universal commonalities give us universal truths that correspond to being in this same common universe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universality_(philosophy)
However, universal truths are only a type of truths. Relative truths are exactly only a type of truth as well. Although Universal truths are and should be objective through commonality by definition, they don’t encompass every detail every factor of truth. That truth is Absolutism. And although I believe that an Absolute truth does exist, (the idea that this world is not just a coincidence and that there is a rational order of nature or God or whatever that pieces this world together) I also believe that this Absolute truth can never be understood, as it is infinite and we humans are finite beings. Hence, absolute truths do not exist to the understanding of the human mind. Objective statements exist, but it all depends what level of truth we are speaking of and how we define it.
Does that make more sense? Haha, it’s all contradictory and intertwined. Such is the universe.
I like daise’s research on wiki about universality - that universal truths cannot be defined by our definition. I’ve never heard of ‘absolutism’ but it also follows that if absolute truths are infinite, then they can contradict themselves as they can contain every subjective portion of truth. A truth that contradicts itself is by our definition, not a truth. Hence, by our definition, absolute truth cannot exist.
Also i’d like to point out my appreciation of Andy Tee’s thought experiment, to say that subjective truth is the only truth. Both perspectives (the ‘apple’ and the ‘orange’) are correct/real/true. Another way of saying this same statement is both perceptions are false.
My stance is that nothing is true besides our own subjective realities, because nothing exists beyond our own creations. (don’t try to understand that one)
Only closed systems have truths, in the absolute sense. For example, a “proof” is solely the remit of mathematics, because this is the only scientific discipline that operates entirely from self-contained, self-consistent axioms and self-contained, self-consistent rules of inference. Those presumptions may not be true however. Tautologies like pure maths are only true within themselves.
Applied maths is different, of course, as it about real world things. But without perfect knowledge, one can’t have perfect truths. This is why the scientific method only falsifies, and never “proves” a truth.
However, there are “working proofs” that we consider to be “truths” in a tentative sense, like long established physical “Laws” or theories such as Theory of Evolution which will never be labeled ‘proven’ in the absolute sense of the word, despite the staggering amount of convincing evidence that supports it which makes for an incontrovertible case.
I loved reading it. I require to read more on this issue…I am admiring the time and effort you put in your blog, because it is plainly one great place where I can find lot of useful info..
