aloha918 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 im completely pleading ignorant on this one........what is this?.....why is it so wrong?........what are the beliefs?..... thanks a whole heep men and women, Pax out.....Aloha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stargirl3:16 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 A quick summary: Relativism: What's true for me might not be true for you, and what's true for you might not be true for me. Basically, no absolute truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP2Iloveyou Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Relativism is a philosophy that teaches that there is no absolute moral truth. It says that what is moral for one person may not be moral for another. Therefore, we really can't say anything is right or wrong. The ramifications of this are obvious. If relativism wins the day, eventually we won't even be able to punish people for violent crimes. There are many arguments you can use to refute this, for example: When a relativist says to you, "there is no moral truth." You can simply respond, "How about that one?" Basically, the entire philosophy contradicts itself by claiming that, "There are no absolute truths." is absolutely true. It is utterly absurd. I hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Relativism is the belief that there is no absolute truth. It is a fallacy because, of course, it tries to say that "there is no absolute truth" which is in itself an attempt to make an absolute truth. It is basically the mindset which feeds into the entire culture of death, the "do what makes you feel good" attitude, the notion that we should go be emotion and not by rationale, and that it doesn't matter what you believe or how you live, it just matters that you enjoy yourself. It's a terrible, terrible thing that basically says to everyone, "it's up to you to decide what's right and wrong and true and false" and completely disregards all authority or structure or any foundation for universal morality and belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 [quote name='aloha918' date='Apr 20 2005, 11:48 AM']im completely pleading ignorant on this one........what is this?.....why is it so wrong?........what are the beliefs?..... thanks a whole heep men and women, Pax out.....Aloha[/quote] Basically, it is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. The biggest problem with this type of philosophy is that the premise is flawed. If this point is to be held, then it is an aboslute. However, there can be no absolutes. If all truth is relative, then the statement "All truth is relative" would be absolutely true. If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that "All truth is relative" is false. The statement "There are no absolute truths" is an absolute statement which is supposed to be true. Therefore it is an absolute truth and "There are no absolute truths" is false. If there are no absolute truths, then you cannot believe anything absolutely at all, including that there are no absolute truths. Therefore, nothing could be really true for you - including relativism. If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure which is self defeating. The easiest defeat of relativism is to ask this question, If all things are relative, and what is true for you is not true for me, what is the one thing that is true to us all? Because with all things being one, there is. This is the ultimate defeat of relativism..... don't know yet........ the answer is............ Death. We all die. It is as true for me as it is for you. You can choose not to believe in God. Or you can choose to believe in whatever god you want. You can ascribe to Aristotle, or Plato, you can be a Cartesian, or a Kantian (although, this is his position that I am refuting), but the one thing that you and I cannot escape and the one thing that is common to us all is death. It pokes a giant hole in the whole relativist philosophy. We can discuss the intricies, but the philosophy is fatally flawed from the beginning. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God Conquers Posted April 20, 2005 Share Posted April 20, 2005 Relativism: the belief that all truth is relative and subjective. Why it doesn't make sense: Statement: "All Truth Is Relative" That is an absolute statement, if indeed it is true it is self-contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 My friend wrote this in regards to relativism. What would everybody respond to him? "A couple (how "relative" is a couple!) of things: First, you must clarify if you are speaking of the physical universe, within the five dimensions, or of things outside the physical universe or of things outside the five dimensions. Physical or spiritual? Then ask yourself... What if the statement "all truth is relative" is only relatively true? Is death really absolute? What if it were not? Where is Elijah? Was he not human? Is time a form of truth? Is time absolute? To answer your query, all things of man and the physical universe are relative and all things of the Eternal and the spiritual are absolute." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 [quote]We all die. It is as true for me as it is for you. You can choose not to believe in God. Or you can choose to believe in whatever god you want. You can ascribe to Aristotle, or Plato, you can be a Cartesian, or a Kantian (although, this is his position that I am refuting), but the one thing that you and I cannot escape and the one thing that is common to us all is death. It pokes a giant hole in the whole relativist philosophy. We can discuss the intricies, but the philosophy is fatally flawed from the beginning.[/quote] Kant and his philosophical system are not relativistic. He maintains that there are empirically real and transcendentally real things, and that most of the time these things are real simultaneously. Even in the realm of ethics, Kant maintains that the categorical imperative is a universally true rule, and, moreover, that all people who follow the categorical imperative via the use of right reason will arise at the same conclusion. I am not a Kantian, but I can say that those who are Kantian are by no means relativists. Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinitelord1 Posted April 21, 2005 Share Posted April 21, 2005 i guess relativism only applies to those who dont believe in god. Afterall, we are not supposed to determine our own perspective of moral rights and wrongs based on the way we feel about them. Or else, everyone would have different perspectives of what is right and wrong. The bible stands for what is right and wrong.......if everyone were to follow the bible 100% we would all have the same perspective (gods perspective) of what is right and what is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Well no. Relativism has seeped into Protestants who cannot seperate themselves from the world through their half-truths. They follow the mainstream, and do not really change anything, and so will back down and agree that each one believes different things and it is ok (lukeworm Catholics held accountable here). You also find it in groups that want to change Church teachings, who think the teachings are relative to the time and the day, rather than absolute and not changable. That is relativism. I would guess we have all picked up some form of it. It is entirely disgusting, and should be purged from within us all. God bless, Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argent_paladin Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 [quote name='Timothy' date='Apr 21 2005, 09:03 AM'] First, you must clarify if you are speaking of the physical universe, within the five dimensions, or of things outside the physical universe or of things outside the five dimensions. Physical or spiritual? Then ask yourself... What if the statement "all truth is relative" is only relatively true? Is death really absolute? What if it were not? Where is Elijah? Was he not human? Is time a form of truth? Is time absolute? To answer your query, all things of man and the physical universe are relative and all things of the Eternal and the spiritual are absolute." [/quote] Five dimensions? There are three spatial dimensions and one temporal one, equaling four. Unless youare talking string theory and then there are perhaps ten, 12, or up to 20. But not five. If the statement "all truth is relative" is itself relative. That means that it is true for some people and false for others. That is, for some people there would be no truth, and for others there would be truth. But then the statement "all truth is relative" would be true for the first group, which is impossible because there is no truth for the first group. And the statement "all truth is relative" would be false for the second group (which has absolute truth). That is consistent. Therefore, the only consistent world is one in which the statement "all truth is relative" is false, and there is, in fact, absolute truth. Clear? With all due respect to Cam, I am also not persuaded by the death example. Angels do not die, neither do the persons of the Holy Trinity. In fact, death is not even the natural end of humans, since we were created immortal. And our souls, the substantial form of humans, does not die, but lives forever. So, in a sense, we don't die, but live forever. Time is not a form of truth. And time is relative to the observer, as are the other spatial dimensions, as shown by Einstein. I could agree with that final statement, as properly understood. Moral truths are eternal and thus absolute. Man, as participating in the Life of Christ, and whose end is in Union with God, is also eternal and thus absolute. The flaw in the last statement is the false dichotomy between the material and the spiritual. They are intimately connected. We humans, for example, are embodied souls, inseperable, which is why we will have bodies in heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 [quote]With all due respect to Cam, I am also not persuaded by the death example. Angels do not die, neither do the persons of the Holy Trinity. In fact, death is not even the natural end of humans, since we were created immortal. And our souls, the substantial form of humans, does not die, but lives forever. So, in a sense, we don't die, but live forever.[/quote] Prove that to an relativist. I was speaking to a Relativist on their level. Purely philosophical. While I understand and accept what you say, the Relativist won't. He will say, "Prove the existence of an angel;" "Prove the Holy Trinity." "And just what do you mean by souls?" They simply will put you off. On a philosophical level, however, the death argument will suffice, precisely because it is the physical end of man. Elijah was a miraculous action, thus would not be accepted either. It is what binds us together argent, even though it is not the end, it is a physical absolute that all mankind must endure, even if to get to the next level. So, death will suffice to disprove a relativist. Now, with all that being said, I most certainly believe in more than the philosophical proof that dissuades a Relativist. All of this is illumined by faith and I accept that. However, one doen't need theology to disprove a Relativist. Even if I were atheist, which I am not, I could disprove this philosophy in the manner that I just did. Cam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 (edited) argent_paladin I sent your reply to my friend, and will wait for his response. And if I know him correctly, then trust me he will reply. I will post it as soon as I get it. Edited April 22, 2005 by Timothy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corban711 Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 you should read "A Refutation of Moral Relativism" by Peter Kreeft. it is an easy read and very well done. the whole book is done in dialogue format (imaginary socratic dialogues) which make it more accessible yet still very informative. Kreeft is my favorite author (i have 28 of his books...hehe) so I had to say that...hehe but i have read it twice and found it very helpful. it is published by Ignatius Press Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now