Truth - Relativism vs. Absolutism

[Irenicas]

I was considering the idea of truth recently, and I wonder how people stand on this issue - are people relativists (the truth changes from person to person) or are they absolutists (the truth is always the same, some people are wrong, others are right)?

Personally, I am a relativist, as I believe that what you think, what you believe, what you will, changes reality.

 

[meogi]

Good and evil are relative (situational)... that would make truth relative too. So I guess that makes me a relativist. I'm not sure about being able to "change reality" though... what exactly do you mean by that?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I think you might need to define your question, or make it slightly more specific.

Are you asking about moral relativism and moral absolutism (i.e. murder is always wrong or charitable acts are always good)? Or are you asking about truth statements (i.e. 3 +3 = 6)?

Many people would be an absolutist when you are discussing truth statements, and yet relativists when the topic is of a moral nature.

I'll limit my reply to the moral aspect of your question. I am definitely a moral relativist. What one person, at a given point in time considers immoral is not given a second thought in other cultures and at different times in history. An example of this would be the act of impaling conquered enemies, or the act of crucifying people as a means of punishment and death.
Actually, the world today is full of moral relativism. In many Middle Eastern societies the idea of cutting off the hand of a thief or stoning a person to death is acceptable. Undoubtedly, these practices are not accepted in most Western cultures.

TVOR

 

[Runt]

I think that there is one physical truth (and we're still busilly discovering it, making more leaps and bounds every day than we had previously), and no moral truth other than what we humans invent in our minds. Which I guess would make me a subjectivist? I don't believe there is such thing as good and evil... however, I believe there is such a thing as actions or events that are beneficial to humanity/society/the invididual and events or actions that are detrimental to humanity/society/the individual. I believe that these actions and events are relative (what may be good for a society may not be good for humanity, or what may be good for the individual may not be good for society... or what may be good for one individual may be detrimental to another--like milk, rofl) and that our opinions about what is "good for humanity/society/the individual" and "bad for society, etc" are subjective based on what our subjective idea of the nature of a "good society, etc" or a "bad society, etc" is.

 

[Master Vigil]

I had this discussion with my religious professor a few months ago. If "something" is percieved one way by one person, and another way by another person, does that mean that either A: the "something" exists differently for each person, and thus hardly existing at all? B: All attributes are present within the "something" and only some attributes are seen by some people and other attributes are seen by others? Or C: It only holds one truth and our perceptions just don't perceive it the right way (due to our imperfections)?

Have I missed any other options?

Personally, I lean mostly towards option B and C. Not sure which one I am going to choose yet though.

 

[Sunstone]

According to Howard Gardner, people have different kinds of intelligence --- there are perhaps as many as eight or nine different kinds of intelligence, such as spatial intelligence, linguistic intelligence, kinetic intelligence, etc. i.e. We can be very smart in some ways, mediocre in some ways, and very stupid in others. Each of us is a unique mix of strengths and weaknesses, when it comes to intelligence.

The implication is that for any one of us to be realistic, we should seek the input of others as well as our own insights. We each may see the world a bit differently, but that doesn't mean that reality is subjective -- it means that our impressions of reality are subjective. Discovering the truth is a communial activity.

 

[Irenicas]

"I had this discussion with my religious professor a few months ago. If "something" is percieved one way by one person, and another way by another person, does that mean that either A: the "something" exists differently for each person, and thus hardly existing at all? B: All attributes are present within the "something" and only some attributes are seen by some people and other attributes are seen by others? Or C: It only holds one truth and our perceptions just don't perceive it the right way (due to our imperfections)?"

There's your explanation fo the question!

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I had this discussion with my religious professor a few months ago. If "something" is percieved one way by one person, and another way by another person, does that mean that either A: the "something" exists differently for each person, and thus hardly existing at all? B: All attributes are present within the "something" and only some attributes are seen by some people and other attributes are seen by others? Or C: It only holds one truth and our perceptions just don't perceive it the right way (due to our imperfections)?

You really need to pick up Bertrand Russell's book "The Problems of Philosophy" (it was written in 1912). He spends one chapter writing about the attributes of a table that is in front of him - and he covers exactly the points you ask in your post. He had two other books that I found to be excellent reading - "Why I Am Not a Christian" in which he argues against the teachings and positions of the Roman Catholic Church of his time, and "Unpopular Essays" which contains (among other pieces) "Ideas that Have Helped Mankind" and "Ideas that Have Harmed Mankind".

He grew up among the leading philosophers of his day, and is (to me) incredibly gifted in terms of being readable (a trait that I do not find in most philosophers).

TVOR

 

[Runt]

If "something" is percieved one way by one person, and another way by another person, does that mean that either A: the "something" exists differently for each person, and thus hardly existing at all? B: All attributes are present within the "something" and only some attributes are seen by some people and other attributes are seen by others? Or C: It only holds one truth and our perceptions just don't perceive it the right way (due to our imperfections)?

I lean toward options A and C... at the same time. I believe that there is one reality and that our perception of this reality changes from person to person depending on their intellect, sensory capacities, education, etc. If two people view one object in two different ways, the object still only has one reality. Either one of the two people is completely right about it and the other only partially right or completely wrong, or they are both partially right and partially wrong, or one of them is partially right and partially wrong and the other is simply wrong.

However, I believe there are some things that simply do not exist outside of the human mind. Beauty, for example. There's something that absolutely requires a human observer in order to exist. Without a human observer to make judgements on objects existing in physical reality, there IS no such thing as beauty. And there is not one single nature, one single reality of beauty, there are many. It differs from person to person, culture to culture.

This is why I think A and C are BOTH the answer to your question.

B, however, I do not think is true. That would mean that every single opinion on a subject, every single perception, would all simultaneously be correct... the earth would be round AND flat, God would exist AND not exist, etc...

 

[painted wolf]

I find "truth" to be the most fickle of ideas... I guess that makes me a relitivist.

wa:do

 

[Master Vigil]

But runt, say the sun hurts my eyes. Therefore I see evil in it. But also the sun is good, for it gives life. So is it that I cannot see the good? Or is it that everyone else cannot see the evil? Or maybe it is both good and evil. Say I and a friend go for a walk. We come to a fence. The fence is too high for my friend to jump over, but not for me. So he sees the fence as an obstacle, I see it as a hurdle. Is it both an obstacle and a hurdle? I would say yes. That means an object's truth and reality is in its objectiveness. But the subjective attributes our perceptions give it, only exist for the soul reason to help us understand it. And therefore, it holds all attributes for us to percieve. If attributes only existed in our minds, than we would be able to fly, or travel the speed of light physically. Maybe this is possible, but I find that we are bound by objectiveness physically, but mentally and spiritually, we can fly. The subjectiveness is whats infinite, and is what allows god to exist and not exist at the same time.

 

[Runt]

I would say that the nature of the sun is neither good nor evil, and the fence is neither obstacle nor hurdle. These are simply its nature in relation to US. A building is neither tall nor short until you have something to compare it to. Once you have something to compare it to, its nature is relative: under one set of conditions the truth is one thing, and under another set of conditions the truth is another (possibly contradictory) thing.

Thus A is correct, because the nature of the sun, and the nature of the fence, are different for each person who is being related to it. The person is the condition. The condition changes, NOT the nature of the object. And thus C is correct. However, that sun and that fence, not truly being good nor evil and not truly being obstacle nor hurdle, do NOT contain more than one version of the truth. Thus B is incorrect. (In my opinion)

The fence in relation to you is one reality. The fence in relation to your friend is another reality. PERSON IN RELATION to fence and FENCE alone are two entirely different things which have entirely different realities.

 

[Master Vigil]

"PERSON IN RELATION to fence and FENCE alone are two entirely different things which have entirely different realities."

This is what I agree on. But how do we come to know the FENCE without knowing PERSON IN RELATION to fence? I am not sure we can. Nor could any living being. So I believe that makes it more complicated.

 

[roli]

I was considering the idea of truth recently, and I wonder how people stand on this issue - are people relativists (the truth changes from person to person) or are they absolutists (the truth is always the same, some people are wrong, others are right)?

Personally, I am a relativist, as I believe that what you think, what you believe, what you will, changes reality.

Response from Roli
In much of society today truth actually has become personally subjective to a relative interpretation .
Eg :The courts expect you to tell the truth, not partial , exaggerated,or false truth,
not what is relative to you or the situation for the betterment of yourself, that would be bias and truth become self interpretive, what would a society like that progress to if truth becomes relative in every aspect of life. political,social, culture etc.
Truth is no longer a constant as the Greek or Hebrew DEFINE IT.
Hebrew Definition
firmness, faithfulness, sureness, reliability, stability, continuance ,faithfulness,
Greek Definition
objectively, in reality, in fact, certainly, actual, true

If a particular viewpoint, perspective and rationale towards truth is relative, how then can these and any other philosophical discussions ever be more then circular reasoning, achieving nothing more than an exchange of words , thoughts and ideas.

Can truth be relative in some cases and other situations be absolute ,if so, who sets the primeters, conditions and times,eg: me telling a lie to help protect someones feelings , although it may be a violation of moral truth in one sense, it is for a greater gain,so the end justifies the means.
A person can become so detached from reality and truth thru extensive reasoning that they don't even trust on sensory perception, experience or cause and effect.
Life just becomes fictional, as does every instance of their life.At least in the intellect ,but when I proceeded to disprove his theories ,he walked off

Is truth a constant we can rely on and follow or just a mirage of relative thoughts?

Think about the laws active in the universe, tell me they are relative!

I personally experienced this when I had a discussion with a relativist,

 

[Irenicas]

Yes, but the so called "laws which you make reference to are in fact simply theories. No "law" has ultimate (complete) proof, I refer you to Hume's laws of causation. Simply because something has behaved in one way up until now does not mean it will neccesarily continue to act in that way. If I pick up a piece of paper, and then let it go, then previous experience will tell us it will fall to the ground. However, this is not certain because there is a possibilty, however small, that it will not do this but instead, for example, turn into a small orange gibbon.

 

[Pah]

Personally, I am a relativist, as I believe that what you think, what you believe, what you will, changes reality.

As Irenicas said, it applies to me

-pah-