Relitivism?

[aloha918]

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

[stargirl3:16]

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.

[JP2Iloveyou]

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.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

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.

[Cam42]

[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

[God Conquers]

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.

[Timothy]

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."

[Timothy]

[Guest JeffCR07]

[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

[infinitelord1]

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.

[MichaelFilo]

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

[argent_paladin]

[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.

[Cam42]

[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

[Timothy]

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

[corban711]

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

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 22 2005, 07:08 AM'] 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. [/quote]
You know way too much for your own good.

[Timothy]

Okay here is his reply....enjoy!


[quote]A very thoughtful retort!  I was worried when I hadnt received anything yesterday. I thought I left enough clues for you to chew on and apparently I have.

Im glad to see you have retreated from that very foolish example regarding death. At least it served well as a dramatic statement yet false as an argument. Im certainly glad that that specter has proven to be relative! Besides, if we survive the next decade, mans technology will probably be capable of making death the exception and not the rule. A huge indication of this and proof that death is relative in nature is cancer cells, they are immortal. Funny, our curse, cancer, may some day be our blessing (or perhaps an everlasting curse?). But you misspoke, for now (and probably truly forever) we are not immortal in and of ourselves, only Christ makes this so.

Television rots your brain because when you watch it, your cognitive functions begin to deteriorate.

I find the above to be a much more appealing example of circular logic than yours. If the world is so absolute then why dont you try giving more concrete examples instead of circle jerks? There are many of them. But Ill play; the fact that truth may be relative to the first group does not dictate that truth does not exist. Ahhh, I take it back; its a really boring kind of argument, as it does not lend itself well to experimentation, yawn. This type of argument never convinces anyone, it just reminds one to stock up on aspirin!



Just because the fifth dimension is not officially recognized by science, yet, does not mean that it does not exist (its unfortunate that the characteristic of the 5th dimension is so threatening to scientific objectivity, but nevertheless, it is right up your alley), after all, the world turned out to be round, right? The master, Einstein, spent his last decade proving mathematically that it does exist and came electron close. The fifth dimension is the degree of goodness and the degree of evil. You see, the Jews claim that the Eternal told them that it exists and is the basis for most of their theology (and ours). As a Christian, and since Judaism is our foundation, it would me most unappealing if you rejected it. It is an obvious thing in the world and Christ spoke of it in great detail. Funny you mention string theory (mathematically it works out), many Jews, as told to Moses, also believe that the Eternal works in 26 dimensions, though even this number by no means limits His infinite nature.



Im glad to see that you wisely recognize that an important dimension in the universe is, in fact,  relative! It is such an important dimension that it is indeed a form of truth. As a dimension, is it not part of reality and actuality, the very definition of truth? I could give you an infinite (if I was truly immortal as you say) number of examples of times truth but suffice to say that it is of such importance that in the book of Genesis it is the first concept: In the beginning, a strong implication of the time continuum, which then proceeds to the six days of creation and the seventh day of rest; time, time, time truth, truth, truth. To deny this would mean to deny existence and therefore God.

Finally, we come to the rub and the crumbs I left (remember, I love backhands). Your last statement was not the way I would have put it but it was brilliant and perhaps better than mine since you are bringing in the Boss and all. There was no false dichotomy (I dont speak falsely); Man is both physical and spiritual. To be clearer though, I should have said subject to relativity. It was very intuitive for you to notice though. You need only to pinch yourself and then to examine your thoughts to know this. Thought is spiritual. It is a manifestation of the soul.  The Jews tell us that in the spiritual realm there is no space, there is no time, and that everything is absolute and moreover, singular. For instance, this is why you cannot have more that one thought at a time. Try it. According to them there is a reason for this, but that is another subject. Also, God and Christ are many times compared to light and it is not coincidence that the most distinctive property of light is timelessness; at the speed of light, time does not existan absolute!

Where your logic fails and what evidence supports, is that existence has both absolute and relative truths.

Ironically but perhaps predestined, Physics has proven this to be the case between the absoluteness of Newtonian Physics and the relativity of Quantum Physics.



The real problem is I think I mentioned the world is round, right? Its flatness was an unfortunate absolute statement the Church made when it should have stuck to what Father Russ called, the main thing.  This is an adventure that the Olivetan should probably avoid as it is distracting from the main thing. But I understand why, at John Paul II request, he tackled it. You, as well as most of the commentators, even those who support him, are misinterpreting His Holinesss point. You and they are getting him wrong.

What His Holiness defends is not dogmatism against relativism. What he defends is not absolutism against relativism. These are false alternatives.

What he attacks as relativism is the regulative principle that all thought is and must remain subjective. What he defends against such relativism is the contrary regulative principle, namely, that each human subject must continue to inquire incessantly, and to bow to the evidence of fact and reason.  How ironic, our enemy of the past centuries has become our greatest ally!

Atheistic thought has entered the post modern age tail between its legs, and has retreated toward the pathetic theory of absolute relativism, since science has chased them away and destroyed all the previous un-truths and corrupt theories they relied on.

The fact that we each see things differently does not imply that there is no truth. It implies, rather, that each of us may have a portion of the truth, and that in this or that matter some of us may hold more (or less) truth than others. Therefore, since each of us has only part of all the truth we seek, we must work hard together to discern in all things wherein lies the truth, and wherein the error.

His Holiness wishes to defend the imperative of seeking the truth in all things, the imperative to follow the evidence. This imperative applies to daily life, to science, and to faith. The great Jewish and Christian name for God is connected to this imperative one of the Creators names is Truth. Other related names are Light as I have said, and Way. Humans are made seekers after truth.

It is no more than a fact that ours is a pluralistic world, in which individuals have virtually an infinite variety of views. For the Olivetan, not only is this individual variety normal and to be praised; it shows the infinite number of ways humans have been made in the image of the infinite God. Each one of us, as it were, mirrors a different aspect of the infinite abundance of God.

But the fact of human relativity that is, the fact that we each see things differently, or that the life-voyage of each of us is unique and inimitable should not be transformed into an absolute moral principle. The fact of relativity does not logically lead to the principle of moral relativism.

No great, inspiring culture of the future can be built upon the moral principle of relativism. For at its bottom such a culture holds that nothing is better than anything else, and that all things are in themselves equally meaningless. Except for the fragments of faith (in progress, in compassion, in conscience, in hope) to which it still clings, illegitimately, such a culture teaches every one of its children that life is a tale told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Understand the relativity man is subject to and indeed imprisoned with but seek and find The Absolute Truth!

[/quote]

Edited April 25, 2005 by Timothy

[Timothy]

I don't know what to think about this...what do you all think?

[argent_paladin]

First to Cam...
Yes, I suppose your argument from death is a good one. I was just on a realist philosophy rather than an existential one. From a realist point of view, we are rational animals. From an existentialist point of view, we all die.

And I have to go to class and cannot fully respond now, but the sense I get is that we are not too much in disagreement. I am not saying that NO truths are relative or that nothing is relative. I am simply saying that not everything is relative, not all truth is relative. A truth like "Taco Bell is the best resturant" is a truth for me but not for you. But, something like 2 + 2 = 4 is true for all. Showing that some truth is relative doesn't damage my argument. But a single instance of an absolute truth destroys yours.

[Scofizzle]

The opposite of objectivity...

All I know of it has already been said....