Does "dictatorship of relativism" exist?

[Az]

@Aggie.

[Zulu Elephant]

dictatorship of relativism = dictatorship of live and let live

how awful

[Az]

I always let my friendly neighbourhood baby-butcher live and let live. I may not like it, but hey! Who am I to judge?

[Agathon]

WTF has Whaleboy been smoking? His philosophical posts used to make sense.

[Whaleboy]

WTF are you talking about? Sorry this is just meaningless bull****.

Not at all. Whether something has value (ultimately, relativism says that it is value which is relative), depends entirely upon context. You would have be an essentialist to say otherwise would you not? Stating relativism is not like stating theism, the proposition is does not seek to be absolute, as Kantian prescriptions do. It is thus subject to the same boundaries of abstraction as 2+2=4.

Uh no. That is not how the words are commonly used in our language.

Not entirely sure what language you're using, but the one we're using treats subject and object totally different, does it not?

"geocentric". Jesus Christ...

Literally, the belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. In colloquial use, the idea that something that is true "for all intents and purposes" or apparently true, is true. It's buggery of Wittgenstein essentially, since asking if a proposition makes sense in a context is totally different to using assumptions, i.e., no-one uses moral words like taste words, a statement that is patently wrong in many languages.

That doesn't prove your point.

It's not meant to prove my point, it's meant to disprove your assertion that no-one uses moral words as taste words (which even if true would still be geocentric).

Rubbish. None of this has anything to do with relativism.

The idea that we should, for the sake of honesty, accept concepts on their merits and not their consequences is rubbish?

We tend to concur with that which seems most valid to us, but that does not make it so.

So what does make it so?

WTF has Whaleboy been smoking? His philosophical posts used to make sense.

I can see the music man!

[Agathon]

Not at all. Whether something has value (ultimately, relativism says that it is value which is relative), depends entirely upon context. You would have be an essentialist to say otherwise would you not?

No. I take it you've never heard of epistemological and semantic holism.

Stating relativism is not like stating theism, the proposition is does not seek to be absolute, as Kantian prescriptions do. It is thus subject to the same boundaries of abstraction as 2+2=4.

Stating relativism is misusing language.

Not entirely sure what language you're using, but the one we're using treats subject and object totally different, does it not?

No. It's a family resemblance concept for a start. When I say "my belief" or "my judgement" I am not referrring to some private object. When I talk about subjectivity I am not referring to some epistemologically private space, but am expressing a certain feature in the grammar of certain statements.

For example: "looks" statements. When I say "This looks red to me" I am not referring to some private sense object, but I am stating my unwillingness to endorse "this is red" because of other beliefs I have (such as ones about lighting, etc.).

Same for "seems" and other such statements. Relativism tries to equate "is" statements with "seems" statements by ignoring the way they are actually used.

belief that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. In colloquial use, the idea that something that is true "for all intents and purposes" or apparently true, is true.

Truth is quite mundane. "Snow is white" is true, if and only if, snow is white. The same goes for "Schnee ist weiss" etc.

You don't have to be an essentialist to acknowledge this. Davidson isn't, and this is his model of truth.

It's buggery of Wittgenstein essentially, since asking if a proposition makes sense in a context is totally different to using assumptions, i.e., no-one uses moral words like taste words, a statement that is patently wrong in many languages.

Bull****.

meant to prove my point, it's meant to disprove your assertion that no-one uses moral words as taste words (which even if true would still be geocentric).

Bull****. People who use moral words as taste words are breaking the rules. There are moral words and there are taste words, and never the twain shall meet. Of course, some moral words are used superficially like taste words, which means that people like relativists get confused.

The idea that we should, for the sake of honesty, accept concepts on their merits and not their consequences is rubbish?

Your whole argument is a spurious mishmash of concepts that appears to make no sense.

So what does make it so?

Various things: the world, the rules of our language game.

[Agathon]

Why don't you come up with some argument for relativism using simple examples instead of this pretentious bull**** that appears to have no relevance.

I still don't understand what you really mean.

Do you mean that the same statement is true for one person, but not for another? (e.g. "Snow is white").

If so, how can it mean the same thing for both of them, given the connections between meaning and truth?

Either you say that the meanings remain invariant and the truth values differ, which means that each person inhabits a different possible world (at least that is one way of thinking it).

Or you say that "Snow is White" doesn't mean the same thing for both of them, in which case there is no sense in which they are disagreeing, so it's not relativism.

Or you can say that believing something just makes it true (attr. to Protagoras), but this makes false belief unintelligible, destroys logical consistency, and treats belief as equivalent to knowledge, which everyone knows it isn't.

Obviously there's something wrong with relativism when you have to say such ridiculous things.

[Whaleboy]

No. I take it you've never heard of epistemological and semantic holism.

What does that have to do with anything, unless for some strange reason known only to you, languages exist in a vacuum? A holism isn't a self-contained singularity, unless you're a post-structuralist buried nose-deep in the devils dandruff.

Stating relativism is misusing language.

So you keep saying, but you're assuming that relativism depends upon a language where prescription and preference aren't reconcilable.

For example: "looks" statements. When I say "This looks red to me" I am not referring to some private sense object, but I am stating my unwillingness to endorse "this is red" because of other beliefs I have (such as ones about lighting, etc.).

Same for "seems" and other such statements. Relativism tries to equate "is" statements with "seems" statements by ignoring the way they are actually used.

You're illustrating one of the problems with the Tractatus that Witt. resolves in PI, namely that "is" and "seems" are not mutually exclusive, since both can be said but not necessarily shown. Hell, even Davidson says something similar with DT, namely that you can't define ones beliefs/judgements and preferences from each other. This, imo, thoroughly sodomises an objectivist approach to t-sentences, since the meanings of finite forms of language *still* must be predicated. Your semantic holism issue again, it needs essentialism to defeat relativism.

Bull****. People who use moral words as taste words are breaking the rules.

No they're bloody not! Your own source disagrees with you!

Your whole argument is a spurious mishmash of concepts that appears to make no sense.

-Subject is dependent upon predicate/context for meaning
-Predicate/context is dependent upon beholder which (and this is my assumption) is relative to other beholders
-Without predicate/context, something is meaningless/valueless
-Relativism.

And you still haven't addressed emotivism which, if we assume it to be true, makes moral relativism the strongest of all the relativisms imo. And I'm not a cognitive relativist .

[Whaleboy]

Do you mean that the same statement is true for one person, but not for another? (e.g. "Snow is white").

It comes down to necessaries and sufficients... necessary for the beholder, not so for another. That it may be does not affect the fact that it's sufficient.

If so, how can it mean the same thing for both of them, given the connections between meaning and truth?

Meaning is relative, if by truth you mean formal logic (2+2=4, is not relative).

Or you say that "Snow is White" doesn't mean the same thing for both of them, in which case there is no sense in which they are disagreeing, so it's not relativism.

When did relativism require disagreement? You're getting Davidson wrong again.

[Whaleboy]

Why don't you come up with some argument for relativism using simple examples instead of this pretentious bull**** that appears to have no relevance.

I'm not a professional philosopher, which means I'm free to think lucidly with no discipline and occasionally prod both you *and* Asher

[Agathon]

What does that have to do with anything, unless for some strange reason known only to you, languages exist in a vacuum?

Because holism allows context to determine meaning or truth without abandoning objectivity. There is no necessary connection between saying that context matters and relativism.

A holism isn't a self-contained singularity, unless you're a post-structuralist buried nose-deep in the devils dandruff.

This is meaningless bull****.

So you keep saying, but you're assuming that relativism depends upon a language where prescription and preference aren't reconcilable.

I'm talking about the actual languages we use. Not some airy fairy inventions of yours.

You're illustrating one of the problems with the Tractatus that Witt. resolves in PI, namely that "is" and "seems" are not mutually exclusive, since both can be said but not necessarily shown.

This has nothing to do with it. Stop spouting crap. This isn't even Wittgenstein's example.

Hell, even Davidson says something similar with DT, namely that you can't define ones beliefs/judgements and preferences from each other.

What the hell does that have to do with it?

This, imo, thoroughly sodomises an objectivist approach to t-sentences, since the meanings of finite forms of language *still* must be predicated. Your semantic holism issue again, it needs essentialism to defeat relativism.

No it doesn't. Davidsonian holism is independent of questions of essentialism -- that's his ****ing point.

Belief and meaning are interdependent on Davidson's scheme anway.

-Subject is dependent upon predicate/context for meaning
-Predicate/context is dependent upon beholder which (and this is my assumption) is relative to other beholders
Without predicate/context, something is meaningless/valueless
Relativism.

This is meaningless ****. Subject and predicate are grammatical categories. You don't have to take them as indicating some Aristotelian scheme (which Aristotle does).

That is why both Quine and Davidson move to propositions as the fundamental semantic units, rather than names, predicates etc. Neither of them have to care about your argument because languages can manifest ontological relativity - but this doesn't matter for Davidson, since even that does not justify epistemological relativism.

And you still haven't addressed emotivism which, if we assume it to be true, makes moral relativism the strongest of all the relativisms imo. And I'm not a cognitive relativist .

Emotivism is crap because it doesn't deal with the obvious feature of moral statements: that they are subject to logical consistency. Expressions of emotion are not. There's nothing wrong with me being entirely inconsistent in the way I feel, but there is something wrong with being inconsistent in my moral judgements.

Emotivism cannot account for inferences using moral statements. That's Metaethics 101 stuff.

[Agathon]

It comes down to necessaries and sufficients... necessary for the beholder, not so for another. That it may be does not affect the fact that it's sufficient.

This doesn't make any sense.

Meaning is relative, if by truth you mean formal logic (2+2=4, is not relative).

No I don't mean that. If meaning is relative then they aren't disagreeing since they mean different things.

When did relativism require disagreement? You're getting Davidson wrong again.

Jesus Christ... who said that? I merely pointed out that if you are a semantic "relativist" it isn't the same as being a regular one, in fact it isn't being relativistic about truth at all.

I'm not a professional philosopher, which means I'm free to think lucidly with no discipline and occasionally prod both you *and* Ashe

You're not even thinking lucidly. You're just throwing around jargon with little or no appreciation for its actual meaning. It's not that your arguments are wrong, it's that they don't make any real sense.

[Az]

Originally posted by Agathon
WTF has Whaleboy been smoking? His philosophical posts used to make sense.

you obviously haven't been paying attention before, then.

[Agathon]

you obviously haven't been paying attention before, then.

It's worrying. He used to say odd things, but most of it made sense, even if you disagreed with it. Now it just reads like one of those daft french books.

[Az]

If by french books you mean stuff like J.P. Satre, I must admit that I find him very entertaining as reading material. ( I read a collage of his aesthetics works )

WRT Whaleboy, he always came back to the same argument in semantics and the meaning of words whenever you pushed him back on the relativist argument.

It does cause more headache to me now, but I am partial to blaming my emerging hangover. ( drinking early )