What is relativism?

[Sunstone]

Consider the following analogy: Shoe size and proper fit. People have different size feet. Because they have different size feet, people need many more than one shoe size. No one shoe size fits everyone.

In much the same manner, people have different spiritual needs. Because they have different spiritual needs, people need many more than one spiritual path or truth. No one spiritual truth or path fits everyone.

If this can be taken as an anology about "relativism", then "relativism" is not a doctrine that "anything goes". Rather, relativism clearly implies that there is a "proper fit" for each person, but denies that that "proper fit" is the same for each person.

Is this a good analogy? What problems, if any, are there with it? What are the strengths of this analogy? What do you think?

 

[Rex]

Well I thought relativism was more of a "right" "wrong" there is no such thing. While there may be people with different shoe sizes the man down the street thinks his shoes will fit anyone's feet b/c they are size 30. He may be right that anyone can fit into them, but he is also wrong b/c they don't "fit".

But it really wouldn't matter b/c whatever he thinks is right would be right.

Ugh that was confusing.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Relativism is self-refuting.

 

[Sunstone]

Relativism is self-refuting.

That would appear to be the case, based on that analogy of shoe size. Is that what you're getting at, Deut?

 

[cardero]

Sunstone writes: Is this a good analogy? What problems, if any, are there with it? What are the strengths of this analogy? What do you think?

I think the analogy is perfect Sunstone. I have a size 15 foot and when I walk into shoe stores they look at me as if I was some sort of mutant from Mars not unlike the way many other people perceive me when I talk about my spirituality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Relativism asserts that their is no uniquely privileged epistemic stance, moral system, or point of view.

If Relativism is 'true', then it itself is either a relative or absolute truth. Since it cannot be an absolute truth, it must be a relative truth.

But, being relative, if it is Person-A's truth, then Person-B's truth can be otherwise. This can only mean that Person-B's epistemic stance, moral system, or point of view is in some way privileged.

This necessary existence of a privileged position negates/refutes relative truth.

 

[Sunstone]

Relativism asserts that their is no uniquely privileged epistemic stance, moral system, or point of view.

If Relativism is 'true', then it itself is either a relative or absolute truth. Since it cannot be an absolute truth, it must be a relative truth.

If it is Person-A's truth, then Person-B's truth can be otherwise. This can only mean that Person-B's epistemic stance, moral system, or point of view is in some way privileged.

The existence of such a privileged position negates/refutes relative truth.

Damn, but I think you're right, Deut. Thanks for the clarification. I see now that I've mislabeled this thread. It's not really about relativism, but something else. But what else?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Appropriate belief?

 

[cardero]

Personal vs. Absolute TRUTH?

 

[Sunstone]

Appropriate belief?

Works for me. Thanks, Deut.

I would think the "doctrine" of "appropriate belief" then is distinct both from relativism and from absolutism. It is an alternative to both doctrines.

Like relativism, it posits more than one legitimate truth. Like absolutism, it posits that there is indeed a uniquely priviledged moral stance, etc. -- that of "proper fit".

Hmmmm... wonder if that works?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Like relativism, it posits more than one legitimate truth.

Be careful ...

 

[cardero]

Sunstone writes: I would think the "doctrine" of "appropriate belief" then is distinct both from relativism and from absolutism. It is an alternative to both doctrines.

Like relativism, it posits more than one legitimate truth. Like absolutism, it posits that there is indeed a uniquely priviledged moral stance, etc. -- that of "proper fit".
Hmmmm... wonder if that works?

As long as I can get it in a size 15 thats fine.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps it would be better to say there is more than one legitimate aspect of any given thing. For instance, we can look at an ant from the aspect of its biology, it's physics, its chemistry, etc. None of the ways we look at the ant are intrinsically any better or more correct than any other way of looking at the ant -- except as judged by our purpose in favoring one way over the others.

In the same way that there are many legitmate ways of looking at an ant...

 

[Sunstone]

As long as I can get it in a size 15 thats fine.

In a sense, Carrdero, that's the point of this exercise. To be able to get you a size 15 and me a size 12 while both of us using sound reasoning.

 

[cardero]

Sunset writes: In a sense, Carrdero, that's the point of this exercise. To be able to get you a size 15 and me a size 12 while both of us using sound reasoning.

This will be interesting then since some people require shoe horns.

 

[Sunstone]

This will be interesting then since some people require shoe horns.

Let's hope they're not Procrustean shoe horns!

 

[Feathers in Hair]

This will be interesting then since some people require shoe horns.

For a moment there, I was forgetting what a shoe horn actually was, and was picturing this blunt instrument used to hit shoes with. The horrible thing was, for that second, I thought 'we certainly need one of those for some people.'