to an extent, reality refutes relativism by making extinct those who practice certain philosophies or world views. for example, a society that holds the right to indiscriminantly murder sacred will quickly make itself extinct.
further refutations can be derived from certain axiomatically dependent systems, but for the sake of purity i have excluded them.
That's not a refutation of realism (unless maybe you're a pragmatist?) and even then it's not a valid syllogism.... so you haven't refuted anything at all.
[...]
Yes, with much work and care. It's difficult.
3 years ago
Anonymous
>Yes, with much work and care. It's difficult.
Are you sure?
To avoid the obvious objection that affirming blatant contradictions like "The existence of various truths shows that there is no truth", we will refute relativism in these three ways: (1) by showing that relativism concerning truth as an axiom is self-defeating; (2) by arguing that relativism concerning morals leads to absurdity; and (3) by showing that the relativist has no right to assert anything, much less the relativity of his statements.
(1) That "the truth is relative" defeats itself, since this statement renders itself relative to some subject; namely, the person who speaks it. If he believes what he is saying, then he has no grounds for believing it. Another person could easily deny this statement, and he would have to grant him that it's "true for me, but not for thee".
(2) That moral relativism makes the worst of sins, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; murder of parents, children, other relatives, and neighbors; sodomy; liberal socialism; and crony capitalism permissible to he who believes that they are permissible. Per (1), he who objects to the supposed morality of any of these sins has no grounds for his belief that these sins are in fact immoral. But no one would reasonably affirm that these sins are right actions, even if they were the sinner in question. Therefore moral relativism is absurd.
(3) The relativist, in saying that "the truth is relative", robs himself of the ability to assert that. If the truth is relative then there is no hope of finding that the truth is relative. It may be relative to some omniscient mind, but you know yourself that you are not omniscient, so you have deprived yourself of ever finding the truth. This is really further support for (1): that you have no grounds for believing relative truths, because you have eliminated the possibility of knowing truth by making it relative.
This is the refutation of relativism. For more information, please read The Refutation of Relativism by Peter Kreeft.
I used those sins as an example. If you don't like it, you can substitute "the religious shit" with whatever you think is immoral and the argument is the same. If you prefer to call them something other than sins, call them something else. The logic is sound.
It doesn't work because it falsely measures the statement according to a qualifier that is no longer valid (i.e., truth). In relativism, it is not truth that makes interpretations unequal, but power, or more precisely, the quantum of power of the interpreter. Interpretations are not equal, because individuals are not equal (in power). "Truth is relative" is not a truth statement, but an interpretation, interpretations being based on power, not truth, and it is an interpretation that has not yet been refuted (i.e., a more powerful interpretation has yet to appear and overthrow it).
depending on what you mean by "refuted", yes
In what sense has it been refuted and by who?
to an extent, reality refutes relativism by making extinct those who practice certain philosophies or world views. for example, a society that holds the right to indiscriminantly murder sacred will quickly make itself extinct.
further refutations can be derived from certain axiomatically dependent systems, but for the sake of purity i have excluded them.
>to an extent, reality refutes relativism
lol, you have no idea what you're talking about
elaborate
That's not a refutation of realism (unless maybe you're a pragmatist?) and even then it's not a valid syllogism.... so you haven't refuted anything at all.
Yes, with much work and care. It's difficult.
>Yes, with much work and care. It's difficult.
Are you sure?
was nietsche the first fascist?
No. In fact, he refused to attend his sister's wedding, because she was marrying an anti-semitic german nationalist.
What the frick I hate nietzsche now
does this mean "no objective morals" or "no objective facts"
To avoid the obvious objection that affirming blatant contradictions like "The existence of various truths shows that there is no truth", we will refute relativism in these three ways: (1) by showing that relativism concerning truth as an axiom is self-defeating; (2) by arguing that relativism concerning morals leads to absurdity; and (3) by showing that the relativist has no right to assert anything, much less the relativity of his statements.
(1) That "the truth is relative" defeats itself, since this statement renders itself relative to some subject; namely, the person who speaks it. If he believes what he is saying, then he has no grounds for believing it. Another person could easily deny this statement, and he would have to grant him that it's "true for me, but not for thee".
(2) That moral relativism makes the worst of sins, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; murder of parents, children, other relatives, and neighbors; sodomy; liberal socialism; and crony capitalism permissible to he who believes that they are permissible. Per (1), he who objects to the supposed morality of any of these sins has no grounds for his belief that these sins are in fact immoral. But no one would reasonably affirm that these sins are right actions, even if they were the sinner in question. Therefore moral relativism is absurd.
(3) The relativist, in saying that "the truth is relative", robs himself of the ability to assert that. If the truth is relative then there is no hope of finding that the truth is relative. It may be relative to some omniscient mind, but you know yourself that you are not omniscient, so you have deprived yourself of ever finding the truth. This is really further support for (1): that you have no grounds for believing relative truths, because you have eliminated the possibility of knowing truth by making it relative.
This is the refutation of relativism. For more information, please read The Refutation of Relativism by Peter Kreeft.
other than the religious shit, the part about factual self-refutation seems legit
I used those sins as an example. If you don't like it, you can substitute "the religious shit" with whatever you think is immoral and the argument is the same. If you prefer to call them something other than sins, call them something else. The logic is sound.
It doesn't work because it falsely measures the statement according to a qualifier that is no longer valid (i.e., truth). In relativism, it is not truth that makes interpretations unequal, but power, or more precisely, the quantum of power of the interpreter. Interpretations are not equal, because individuals are not equal (in power). "Truth is relative" is not a truth statement, but an interpretation, interpretations being based on power, not truth, and it is an interpretation that has not yet been refuted (i.e., a more powerful interpretation has yet to appear and overthrow it).
2+2 will always equal 4