WikiProject Philosophy	(Rated B-Class, High-importance)	PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Philosophy portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Further information and related task forces:   Metaphysics Ethics

Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

Contents 1 Dharmic religion 2 Removed 3 Confusing paragraphs 4 Proposal 5 Sapir Whorf 6 Argument vs counterexample 7 Russell's paradox 8 The metaphors we live by 9 Ayn Rand 10 cultural relativity 11 NPOV 12 Relativism and too much emphasis on Catholicism? 13 The Catholic Church and relativism 14 Could we have anything more on philosophers who actually advocate relativism? 15 Could we have a bit more explanation of this? 16 Just a place to talk about this 17 good and evil 18 The Catholic Church 19 Pros/Cons to Relativism 20 Biased 21 Biased example in Pros and Cons 22 NPOV Flag 23 Relativism Contradicts itself 24 Relativist fallacy 25 Rihard Dawkins 26 everyday relativism 27 Can someone explain criticism #6 to me? 28 Criticism #5 29 Another #5 ripe for deletion 30 Margolis 31 Re-think 32 Responses section problem. 33 Requesting a breakdown 34 Revision 34.1 Is anyone a relativist? 35 Absolute relativism 36 Freemasonry 37 Undefined terms 38 Not a good article (very bad, in fact)

[edit] Dharmic religion

Dharmic religions do not agree with relativism - they do agree that there are many ways to reach God - how ever, they assume that these different ways do not differ when it comes to issues of love, compassion, respect for one's traditions, and the very idea of seeking the Truth. i.e. what ever "God" you may worship, you believe in ideas such as peace, kinship, respect for other people's lives,caring for the sick and poor etc etc

Relativism says that there is no such thing as the Truth - there are just different truths for different people. Dharmic religions CONTRADICT such a viewpoint.

[edit] Removed

I removed the reference to "Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigms," after "recent developments in the natural sciences," under "Postmodern relativism," since Kuhn's philosophy of science is not a development in the natural sciences anymore than Rorty's philosophy is.

[edit] Confusing paragraphs

I have no idea what §6 under "Criticisms" is supposed to mean: Since logic is inherently constant, and that some things are more true than others, it means that "strong" relativism cannot hold true under many conditions. Relativism often ignores how views have different weight to another. An example of a similar phenomenon is the Gay Marriage debate in the U.S. - an example where the majority dictates the rights of the entirety even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views. I think this needs to be turned intelligible, or go away. Kronocide 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Every argument needs a citation, and a citation from a respectable source such as the Stanford Encylopedia of philosophy. Any or counter argument for which no citation can be found should be deleted. This will prevent the page from being based around misunderstanding's of actual arguments and the use of the page as a personal mainfesto. This is in line with wikipedia policy on the issue.

58.105.111.91 07:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sapir Whorf

"For example, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis is often considered a relativist view because it posits that cultural, linguistic and symbolic beliefs shape the way people view the world."

The Sapir Whorf hypothesis is not postmodern in the usual sense of the word as the page implies.

58.105.111.91 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Argument vs counterexample

"Another argument against relativism posits a Natural Law. Simply put, the physical universe works under basic principles: the "Laws of Nature". Some contend that a natural Moral Law may also exist."

This is not an argument, this is a counter example. This is an argument "Another argument against relatvism suggests that there are universal natural laws which always hold true, and that these universal laws are inconsistent with relativism, some contend a universal moral law exists and that this contradicts relativism". Also I have never heard this argument used directly, I wouldn't say it's one of the core arguments.

58.105.111.91 07:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As stated, neither version is much of an argument. You could cook up an argument against people who are relativist about morality/ethics but not about physical facts, to the effect that morality is evolutionaraliy determined, as per Dawkins.1Z 23:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russell's paradox

"Another counter-argument uses Bertrand Russell's Paradox, which refers to the "List of all lists that do not contain themselves". Kurt Gödel, Jorge Luis Borges, and Jean Baudrillard have famously debated this paradox."

Unless some explanation, however brief, as to how Russell's paradox allegedly supports relativism is provided this constitutes named dropping, not an argument. Also as far as I know Kurt Godel did disscus Russell's paradox but not in the context of relativism so I would like to see a citation for this. If this argument has been used in support of relativism it is an obscure arguement for relativism, it should be replaced by a more prevelant defence. Wikipedia is not the place for all arguments for an for a postion, only the main ones. 58.105.111.91 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is a misunderstanding of the word "paradox". The word means logical inconsistancy and as such means that there is a problem with the argument. It is simply contradictory to the definition of "logic" to say that a paradox implies that both a statement and its opposite may be considered to be true. If an axiomatic system exists in which both a statement and its opposite can be proven to be true, then the axiomatic system may no longer be called an axiomatic system. This is all by definition -- not as a result of anything else. So what Russel Paradox demonstrated was that the at-the-time-accepted axiomatic system describing lists, or more acurately sets, was not consistent. I.e., it did not fit the defnition of the the term "axiomatic system". What this really means is not that either position can be adopted, but rather that talking about the subject in these terms is inherently invalid (because it leads to a paradox, self-contradiction, etc. -- whatever you wish to call it).

Whatever. The section as it stands just isn't remotely explanatory.1Z 23:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an axiomatic system with a contradiciton is still an axiomatic system it is just inconsistent. I abhor relativism, but I fail to see how this is relevant. Actually, the in an inconsitent axiomatic system, all wff are true; this could actually be more used in favour of relativism than against it. However, it doesn't have any merit either way. Although, I can see what your getting at. Nonetheless, if this sort of thing interests you. check out paraconsistent logics; its interesting how inconsistencies are handled in them.Phoenix1177 (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The metaphors we live by

"George Lakoff and Mark Johnson define relativism in their book Metaphors We Live By as the rejection of both subjectivism and metaphysical objectivism in order to focus on the relationship between them, i.e. the metaphor by which we relate our current experience to our previous experience. In particular, Lakoff and Johnson characterize "objectivism" as a "straw man", and, to a lesser degree, criticize the views of Karl Popper, Kant and Aristotle."

An encylopedia is not the place to dump all true and relevant facts about a debate,content should be kept to a tight introduction to the issue as far as is possible. As such I propose we delete the above paragraph and all other paragraphs that are not suitable for this purpose. We need to make the articile user friendly for someone who wants a brief and comprehensible introduction to the core issues. Sticking to key areas will also help us keep the page NPOV.

58.105.111.91 07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Cognitive linguistics and it's role in cognitive science and philosophy, particularly in the "embodiment" oriented thought IS A KEY AREA. Pick up any number of the newer books on cognitive science and the works of Lakoff and Johnson will likely be cited or referred to. See for example Mind In Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and The Science of Mind, Out of Our Heads: Why you are Not Your Brain, and other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousness by Alva Noe, or Supersizing the Mind by Andy Clarke. More orthodox-oriented philosophers such as Daniel Dennet are increasingly considering views from these areas where thought similar to L & J appear or are directly cited. And for what it's worth metaphors we live by is a quarter century old. I'd go to Philosophy in The Flesh if I were to note the "relativistic" aspects of Lakoff and Johnson's thought and research, since that is their most updated popularly accessible work on the matter. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ayn Rand

I think the paragraphs at the end of the article that deal with arguments against relativism need to be cleaned up. I'll try to do a little to improve the cohesiveness and general writing, but I don't know enough about it to do an overhaul.--Tubby 17:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

---

"Followers of Ayn Rand claim the term "Objectivism" to describe her philosophy of maximizing individual capital at expense of all others - on the grounds that all good comes from trusting the productive, creative and free person." - I'm not sure this statement as it stands is relevant, and this whole paragraph doesn't quite make sense.--ArcticFrog 16:06, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is absurd to accuse Rand of advocating pursuing one's interests at the expense of others. She was the foremost philosophical advocate of human rights, and that is universally known to those who have cared to acquaint themselves with her philosophical positions. She held that in normal social contexts people's interests do not conflict with each other; that the appearance that they do resulted from their having an unenlightened view of where their interests lie. Moreover, she held relativism to be profoundly evil, and said so many times in her writings. Therefore, to proffer her as an example of an advocate of relativism is absurd. Michael Hardy 00:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The "foremost philosophical advocate of human rights"? You must be joking. If Ayn Rand can be said to have been the "foremost advocate" of anything, then she was certainly the foremost advocate of ethical egoism. And she did advocate pursuing one's interests at the expense of others - as long as no "use of physical force" is involved. In Rand's philosophy, it is perfectly good and moral to extract the maximum possible profit from a suffering, dying man who begs you to save his life. Furthermore, she was outright fanatical in her support for SOME human rights, while completely denying the validity of others. Ultimately, the only right truly supported by Rand is private property - and she takes it to its logical extreme, to a point where private property is held as an absolute law that must be enforced no matter the consequences. Quite simply, if Ayn Rand had the choice between depriving one man of his property and allowing the destruction of all Mankind, she would allow the destruction of all Mankind - and argue that the other choice was "immoral". I'm afraid that's not support for human rights, my friend. That is insanity. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the right not to have physical force used against oneself is a fundamental human right. An argument can be easily made that the only other ones are the right to liberty and property. And forcing a person into servitude of the needy would, in fact, be violation of that person's right to liberty. The example of depriving an individual of property rights vs saving the whole of humanity is compelling, but is only possible because it ignores another one of the tenets of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Namely, that all the active players must act rationally in self-interest (an axiom that is also common to an assumption in most economic models). And if a situation were to arise where an individual had property that had a potential to save humanity, he would be able to exchange it for a great deal of personal wealth and thus would stand to gain a great deal. A ration course of action then would be to go through with the exchange. This is hardly insanity.

Rational means to take optimal action based on what you know and want. Nazi Germany was a model state of rationality. Heck, the Inquisition was rational. Reason is the enemy of the rational. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

---

I removed this ungrammatical definition:

and can be according to linguist George Lakoff in his book "Metaphors We Live By", is the rejection of subjectivism and objectivism both, to focus on the relationship between, i.e. the metaphor by which we relate our current experience to our previous experience.

(by the way, the book is by Lakoff AND Mark Johnson). I do not understand this definition, I do not believe it is Lakoff's definition (page reference, please?), and I do not think it is a useful definition.

Lakoff and Johnson are indeed proposing that the importance of metaphors, which unite both reason and imagination, do provide an alternative to subjectivism and objectivism. And their approach is absolutely consistent with the notion of relativism. But it is not identical to relativism. SR

This totally reminds me of Alfred Korzybski and General Semantics / Science and Sanity, or even Ludwig Wittgenstein. -- zuzu

---

I have removed the following paragraph, because it doesn't make sense and I do not think it adds anything useful. If some thinks it might be able to add something useful, I encourage them to rewrite it so that it is clear, and then put it back in:

One summary of the argument for relativism is that our own cognitive bias prevents us from being fair as a "subject" observing anything with our own senses, and a notation bias will apply to what we are told exists anywhere outside these senses. Accordingly, we are left with a culture bias shared with other trusted observers, and can never expect to completely escape that in our lifetimes. Skeptics argue that subjective certainty and concrete objects and causes are part of our everyday life, and that there is no great value in discarding such useful ideas as isomorphism, objectivity and a final truth.

Problems:

• "one summary" is poor style (unless it will be folled by an "other" summary with some explanation as to why some people might prefer one summary over the other. More importantly, I do not think there is just one argument for relativism (of which this is a summary). I believe there are many arguments. Better than this paragraph would be someone, a philosopher or anthropologist, providing us with the x number of arguments out there, and locating them historically and institutionally (for example, I know Wittgenstein in effect provides an argument; is his really one form of someone else's argument? Is it an important argument? These are all things a good article would explain)

• "cognitive bias." On the one hand, this is too narrow; why just cognitive? Aren't there important affective biases as well? Why emphasize cognitive

• "cognitive bias." On the other hand, this is too broad. Isn't cognitive bias just the same thing as empistemological subjectivism? This isn't an argumen FOR relativism, it is just naming things that are "not relativism" An example of something that is not relativism is not in itself an argument for relativism.

• I have no idea what "notation bias" is, and I suspect many others do not know as well. But more disturbingly, I have read some philosophy and anthropology -- I have read people who argued FOR "relativism" -- and have not heard anyone use it. A "summary" of an argument for relativism should tell us whose argument this is and explain to us the language that he or she uses, not just throw it at us.

• "Accordingly, we are left with" not only makes no sense at all, it undermines whatever sense the previous sentence may have had. The first paragraph suggests that anthropologists and philosophers mean different things by relativists. A philosopher friend of mine told me (without going into detail) that there are various theories of relativism. But this sentence magically seems to link three kinds of bias, cognitive, notational and cultural. Are these three things always linked? The word "accordningly" just doesn't seem to be used correctly here. It suggest a logical link and I see no logical connection. It suggests some sort of determinism and I see nothing in the previous sentence that necessarily leads to this sentence. The word "accordingly just throws me for a loop.

• "we are left with" something only after something else has been taken away. But nothing in the previous sentence takes anything away. Again, this just makes no sense to me. I am not even sure what the author is trying to say.

• What the paragraph seems to do so far is say that there may be epistemological and cultural reasons for bias. It seems to suggest some connection between the two, but I know few people who would say this. In any event, this is not an argument for relativism. It is a description of reasons for non-relativism. Whatever the author thinks the word "argument" means -- not just for philosophers but just in plain English -- I do not think it is this.

• "Skeptics..." seems to introduce an argument against relativism and as such should have its own paragraph. But, for the same reasons as above I don't see any value in this sentence; it is uninformative and unclear, simply stringing togetehr jargon without explanation.

• "Skeptics" introduces an especially useulss and counterproductive element to an encyclopedia article. When reading an article on relativism I am glad to find a section on criticisms of it. But the vague word "skeptics" is next to useless. Within anthropology, are there many non-relativist approaches? What are the major ones? Who are they identified with? Why do they reject relativism? Ditto for Philosophy.

• Finally, this "argument" against relativism doesn't seem like much of an argument. If I understand it (and again, given the unclear prose I readily admit I may be misunderstanding it) it seems to be saying that some people do believe that knowledge is subjective but do not care. Although i am sure that there are people like this, I would not label this approach "skeptical." Moreover, I hardly believe it does justice to the various arguments within anthropology and philosophy against relativism, which are more sophisticated, by far, than this.

I cannot tell whether the author if this paragraph is a relativist or an anti-relativist. The poor language seems to make a mockery of both relativists and anti-relativists! But ultimately I do not care whether the person is for or against relativism. i just want to read an article that is well-written and informative and this paragraph is a huge distraction, SR

I think I get the 'gist' of it, so here is the paragraph again, with better (?) wording:

One argument for relativism is that our own cognitive bias prevents us from observing something objectively with our own senses, and notational bias will apply to whatever allegedly can be measured without using our senses. In addition, we have a culture bias shared with other trusted observers, which cannot be eliminated. A counterargument to this is that subjective certainty and concrete objects and causes are part of our everyday life, and that there is no great value in discarding such useful ideas as isomorphism, objectivity and a final truth.

For the last part, I think the counterargument recognizes the subjective nature of knowledge, but at the same time, the subjective nature of knowledge falls apart without concepts of objectivity. I hope I made it clearer. Wikiwikifast 04:40, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] cultural relativity

Cultural relativity is the idea that each culture, and its practices, should be evaluated on independent merits and not necessarily seen as being "better" or "worse" than another one. It's an interesting and controversial topic and it's not currently covered as a separate entry in the wikipedia. Should it forward to this entry? Should it be a new entry? It seems to me like it could be covered here, but I'm not expert on the subject, just interested.

It is also a methodological framework within which some anthropologists work, not merely a formulation of an epistemology DivisionByZer0 (talk) 03:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The so-called npov edit on 14:00, 9 Jan 2005 made the article less philosophically rigorous. I suggest going back to the version as of 16:49, 24 Dec 2004.

[edit] Relativism and too much emphasis on Catholicism?

A couple of comments here--

the role of modern cultural anthropology, philosophy and cultural relativism should definitely be expanded upon. It is true that relativism is a methodological stance but behind it there are commonly held notions within the profession that human culture differs through space and time (i.e., that there are different "cultures" that may serve as objects for investigation) and that this differentiation goes deeper than a superficial veneer of "culture" or custom on top of an undifferentiated human nature. Arguments such as those put forth by thinkers as diverse as Donna Haraway and Bruno Latour question the unity of human nature proposed by modernism (cf. Latour's We Have Never Been Modern). What arguments do generally count in the profession as statements concerning human capacities (linguistic and semiotic) and of humans as social beings are generally quite far from Thomistic or Stoic conceptions of natural law (and of the "possibility" of cultures "deviating" from natural law, such as in the case of cultures who are not as profoundly homophobic as are some in the West).

I am not sure why so much space in this revised article is devoted to papal anxieties about "relativism" and how "relativism" supposedly leads to totalitarianism--relativism as used here by the Holy Fathers seems to be taking the place both of arguments concerning the diversity of human being-in-the-world and the subjective and individualistic moral "if it feels good..." within Western cultures. Subjectivism in this individualistic sense is not the same as cultural relativism. In fact, Pope Benedict VXI´s previous discussions as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (ex-Inquisition) concerning how cultures can be "purged" of their "non-Christian" elements is a form of Christian totalitarianism (and no culture to date, not even the core cultures of Christiandom have been effectively "purged" of those elements). I'll bet my Easter bunny basket on that.

The questions within Christendom of how missionaries "recognize" the signs of (un)acceptable local practices or how they believe the natives are "confused" about the way the world is deserve further scholarly study as in the work of Webb Keane concerning missionaries in Indonesia. At the very least, these sections concerning the papal arguments should be condensed out of consideration for NPOV. Sorry, fellow Catholics, the point of view of the Magisterium is a POV, even if it is one to which we must assent or at least not publicly deviate, and you are commended for including Catholic POV. Is this too much relativism? There must also be responses to Aquinean rationalist concerns for "non-contradiction" included in the article--such as an appreciation for the role of contradiction in human affairs. Aquinean semotics (accidents and essences in his discussion of the Eucharist, inter alia) is an example of the desire to resolve a paradox by more than appeal to unshakeable dogma. Tiger68914 15:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; I added some text suggesting that the Church's position is not so unambiguously on the good anti-relativist side as some might think. I actually think that what distinguishes it with respect to relativism is not its opposition to it, but its apparent insistence that so many other philosophies which are most certainly not relativists, are. This may actually encourage people to be relativists, insofar as they accept this but reject certain Catholic doctrines, as some lapsed Catholics may do.

I also deleted the earlier paragraphs on (1) the principle of non-contradiction, since no explanation is given or suggestion, or easily guessed-at, for what this has to do with relativism from the Catholic perspective (the general argument for this connection, given earlier, should suffice), and (2) on original sin, since again this has little specifically to do with relativism and the church's specific views on it; rather this is its speculative answers on the origin of moral evil, not on its specific characterization or quality as relativistic.134.29.242.184 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The amount of space given to the position of one religious sect, however large, and two leaders of that sect, is absurdly large in this article. Two popes' opinions are given more pace than any of the proponents of the ideas the article is supposedly on. This is simply wrong from any reasonable position. Why is it allowed to stand, and in its own section rather than as another of the criticisms listed? It is frankly outrageous. TheCryingofLot49 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Catholic Church and relativism

I changed the following:

According to the Church and some philosophers, denying that there is absolute truth (the natural law and Church revealed truths are not my truth; my truth depends on what I feel), relativism leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of sin and of God (if it not true that this is wrong according to what I think is right and wrong, then I can do it).

There's no need for the parenthetic sidebars.

According to the Church and some philosophers, relativism, as a denial of absolute truth, leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of sin and of God.

Bookandcoffee 04:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted this paragraph. Look at the firt sentence. Anything can be considered to be doing anything, so that's not a promising start. And the upshot is that if the Catholics are wrong they're really wrong. But that's hardly news.

The Catholic Church can be considered as violating its own strictures against "absoluting what is not absolute but relative" when it condemns contraception, homosexuality, or an equal status for women in religious institutions, on the same basis on which it condemns murder, rape, and similar actions. The latter are more generally agreed to be immoral, and the basis of their moral wrongness (disrespect for other persons) is easily supported by logical arguments. If the former judgments are merely based on idiosyncratic biases of the cultural and historical traditions Christianity grew up in, then treating them as moral sins is to absolutize the relative, so that the Church runs a grave risk of condmemning itself as totalitarian.

I'm all for criticizing the Catholic Church, but this attempt doesn't pass muster. If someone wants to port it to the Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church, that would maybe be appropriate. Jonathan Tweet 01:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could we have anything more on philosophers who actually advocate relativism?

The people listed so far are academic midgets... Is there no-one more well-respected than this Edwards guy?!

Surprisingly few people actually advocate relativism though many endorse views that seem to imply it.58.105.111.91 06:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Rorty? 1Z 22:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we can not. There is no serious philosopher who advocates "relativism." That is the reason for my objection to "Relativism." "Relativism" is not unlike "Islamofascist" and "Christofascist." Nobody calls himself those things. Those are labels others put on you.

That's a common thing for people to say, but it isn't true. Feyerabend admits that he advocates (some weird, incoherent) type of relativism. Gilbert Harman and David Wong admit that they advocate versions of moral relativism.

The real problem here is that there's too much about relativists and too little about why relativism won't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.57.161 (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Heinz von Foerster, Gregory Bateson, Humberto Maturana, Ernest Von Glasersfeld, Francsiso Varela, Niklas Luhman, Ludwig Von Bertlanffy, Soren Brier among other cybernetically minded thinkers have all contributed to constructivist analysis, epistemology, and thinking, which is I'd say related to relativism or a subform of it. These are more philosophically oriented interdisciplinary scientists than pure philosophers however DivisionByZer0 (talk) 04:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Could we have a bit more explanation of this?

As a counter-argument, one can say that only one thing in the world, relativism, is absolute, thereby solving this dilemma. This is a softer take on relativism, and says that the argument presented above is correct in a way. Not all statements are relative, but the only statement that is not relative is the statement: "The only thing that is absolute is that everything else is relative." Although this may preserve relativism for all practical intents and purposes as it is commonly applied, it does so at the cost of accepting one objective truth: relativism itself. A soft point of view on this issue is also that of considering relativism as something related only to human beliefs and behaviours which can't be demonstrated. In this way, relativism would have nothing to do with mathematical or scientific truth.

How can this work as an argument? It's not just soft, it's totally flaccid! And completely arbitrary. If the relativist is asserting that the only thing that is absolute is that everything else is relative, what's to stop a relativist-golfer from asserting that only two things are absolute, the fact that golf is the end goal of all human existence and the the fact that everything else is relative??

I fixed it. The real counter argument, that I have heard twice by two different philosophy professors is that the argument commits a fallacy in that you are effectively presupposing absoluteness to prove relativism wrong. This actual tidbit dates all the way back to the Jain philosophers and the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna. That's the earliest I've seen it. It is very confusing though, you would think that it would either be a tautology or a contradiction, but it is neither. I like to say that a statement can deny the very logical context that it is couched in and yet still convey truth. It's very subtle. (CHF 09:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Also I want to add that the Jains never seemed to even try to explain this. They'd basically just say "Nope, you're still wrong and you're too dumb to get it". Thankfully debate has evolved to be more analytical.

I don't find the "fix" to be at all clear. The anti-relativists are not presuming "nothing is true" out of thin air. (They are not straightforwardly begging the question) They see it as a corollary of "everything is true *by local standards of 'truth')" , which is something the relativists are saying. The argument seems to imply that the process of forming a logical corollary of statement is itself absolutist , because logic itself is absolutist. But if the only way you can defend a philosophy is by saying that there is something wrong with logic itself, you are in a very weak position. The relativists' opponents are entitled to point out that the relativists themselves are begging an major question with their "logic is wrong" premiss.1Z 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is important to make a distinction between the social world and the physical/natural world. This is where positivists and post-positivists never tire to have a go at each other. The Jains have gotten it right, just like the Daoists did, many centuries ago. In that sense we're still lagging behind in the West. What goes beyond this debate, just as the quote "The only thing that is absolute is that everything else is relative." states is that relativism and universalism are mutually implicated in each other. This is beyond Aristotle -- Ying and Yang. Kaloyan* 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone going to explain exactly how relativism is implicated in absolutism????1Z 22:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Positivist is a bad word. I suggest you do not use it like this. While it once had a broader meaning it now basically means logical positivism, and logical positivism is certainly not the logical opposite of what is generally meant by the misnomer "post positivism". In fact strains of logical positivism were relativistic ( i.e Neurath's boat) and positivism's core arguably included scientific anti realism. What you mean by mentioning the distinction between the "social world" and "Physical/natural" world is not at all clear. The distinction is also not uncontroversial, certainly the "social world" is a discrete part of the physical world but I would argue that it is only that, a part of the physical world and not separate in any stronger sense than being a separate part. A deeper explanation of why you have made reference to the Jains and the Daoists, Aristotle and Ying and Yang would be desirable if you want to change the article ( by the way, if you do want to change the article any changes should not be your original thoughts.) Remember that while you may be able to understand what you mean this does not imply that everyone else can if the connections are not properly explained. 58.105.111.91 06:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

By positivism here, I refer to the wider epystemological category known as such. Logical positivism, as you have mentioned, is a branch of it. The distinction I have made between the 'social' and the 'physical' is an important one employed by post-positivists. It has been emphasised over and over again in order to argue that the social world doesn not directly correspond to laws such as the laws of nature, and therefore cannot and should not be attempted to be approached and studied in this manner. There is obviously a heated debate over this issue. As far as the Daoists and Aristotle are cooncerned ... :))) this was just a personal remark on summing up Western and some Eastern approaches. Daoist thought relies on different logic, whereas Western thought has been trying relentlessly to shake off the "Aristotelian logical yoke" for the last 50 years or so. The more successful attempts come very close to or are identical with Daoist thinking. The French school of Postmodernism and Post-Structuralism are a case in point. Kaloyan* 13:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a place to talk about this

I'm very interested in relativism because i think we are in the Age of Relativism, and because i'm a traditional Catholic. To me it seems obvious that relativism not only defeats itself but also has no logical basis. If one admits that events happen, then there is always a truth about what happened, whether we know of it or not. Even if history could be changed in actuality, then those changes would be events that actually happened. Can anyone here provide a good argument for relativism? -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What about this, "I think therefore I am" (Jack-in-the-box philosophy) You can kick me out of my box as many times as you want to but you still have to deal with me. I believe the pink elephant is there, so it is. Self-refuting or not, if it impacts my life I've got to call it something. Don't try to reason with me, it won't work, I will just look at you, smile say thats nice, you have your right to your opinion, I have mine,(In one ear, out the other)Burn my hand on the stove 50 times a day--its all relative.TerryA 09:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not in the age of "relativism." And the contradiction here is religion.

"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."--Friedrich Nietzsche.

In other words, the only thing that has changed is that the Catholic Church has lost its power and subsequently its monopoly on the "truth."

[edit] good and evil

What about good or evil? If something happenes, is automatically good or evil? A moral relativist says, :what is your context.

Same rule applies. If good and evil exist, then good things/acts are good and evil things/acts are evil, no matter what our thoughts about them are. -- 2nd Piston Honda 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What is evil? Christianity defines free will as evil. Satan was cast out because of free will. Or, rather, because he exercised his will. Independence and individualism are evil according to Christianity. Anyone who strays from the flock is evil and needs to be reformed or destroyed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, free will is mostly neutral. What is considered evil is free will that differs from God's Will, and His Desires are well explained (in an eastern context, westerners are quite baffled on this concept because it has not been explained in minute detail!) When a person disregards what God thinks is right, he is guilty of using free will in a way that makes God uncomfortable, and that's no good.69.179.105.237 18:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Catholic Church

The Catholic Church & relativism subsection is very interesting, but it should be moved to a separate article, as it is more concerned about politics. Lapaz

[edit] Pros/Cons to Relativism

Did anyone else notice that while 6 refutations of realativism are listed under the "Relativism: pro and con" section, there are only 4 defenses? Moral Realativism and realativism's more acute logical contradictions seem important enough to warrant a defense against the claims in refutations five and six. It would be great it someone who is better than I at editing articles could go back and fill in the blanks on the defense side. --GravyFish 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

The article seems biased against relativism. In the pros and cons section, there are 6 refutations compared to 4 defenses. In addition to this, almost half of the article is taken up with what the Catholics and Popes have said to refute relativism! How is this NPOV?-195.93.21.33 16:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biased example in Pros and Cons

In the section of Pros and Cons: "An example of a similar phenomenon is the Gay Marriage debate in the U.S. - an example where the majority dictates the rights of the majority even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views. " Gay Marriage is being debated by people who are not homosexual is because gay marriage affects the definition and value of marriage. Marriage, having legal and social value, affects the society as a whole. May the author of this section review this example?

I am not the author but do agree with whoever it was. There is a case to be made that in that debate (as well as in many others) those with a stake in the outcome of a particular event have a much greater say in it then those who are on the "outside looking in," even if they are a minority. As to the "affect on society as a whole," I'll happily believe that when someone tells me how it'll affect my marriage when two guys get married.Seraphimblade 07:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Flag

I flagged this article for NPOV consideration: the article refers too much to Catholic negative opinion on relativism (no other religions or philosophies have anything to say?) and several readers have already flagged other issues on this talk page. This page probably needs rewriting.

I heartily second the motion. This article was so grammatically inferior, so structurally unsound as a source that I gave up looking for information after three paragraphs and just read it for the numbing thrill -- the slow-motion train-wreck sort. Possibly I overstate my case? It may simply be that this is my first true Wikipedia let-down and my vituperative comments are an expression of my virgin disappointment. Still, this sort of article serves as an excellent spur to motivate new Wikipedia writers and editors, no? Strike71 08:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relativism Contradicts itself

To propose the statement, "truth is relative," it condraticts itself as identifying that statement as an absolute truth. "Truth is relative," is not a relative statement. It is absolute. Thus the whole Sophist philosophy is proven incorrect. Relative truths, however, can exist, but the idea that reality can be percieved in a truth to however a person feels it is, is simple ridiculous.

Personally, I cannot make any sense of the previous paragraph, which just goes to show that an individual's reality (and therefore truth) is relative after all. In my reality, the truth is that there are rules of grammar and spelling that should be followed if you want people to understand what you are talking about. Strike71 01:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To the first poster: why must the statement "truth is relative" be an absolute truth? It can be true relative to one or more frameworks, yet not in others. To a relativist it is true according to the framework he is working in. It is only an absolute statement if you don't believe that other frameworks exist - i.e. you believe that there is only one absolute framework - as you clearly believe. You also write: "the idea that reality can be percieved in a truth to however a person feels it is, is simple ridiculous". If you meant be this that people can change their truth at will - nobody suggested this. If you meant that "truth" is whatever a person feels it to be at a given time, then I would suggest that this is the best way to look at truth. I admit that certain people are "wrong" in the respect that they can be convinced that their previous belief (for example, that smoking is healthy) is not true, but the important point here is that they are being CONVINCED - a new fraemwork is introduced and accepted by them, allowing them to assume a new position that is "true" according to this new framework. However, I see no reason to believe that the new position is absolutely true - it is true according to the current framework but may well be changed in the future in the same way. Logica 01:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you say that the statement "something exists" is debatable? 2nd Piston Honda 05:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can provide me a convincing case that works within my framework, then yes. But just because we cannot concieve of something not existing does not exlude the possiblity of nothing existing - just that we have not been convinced of it yet. We cannot reject the possibility of being convinced otherwise. Logica 12:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what exactly is your framework? 2nd Piston Honda 07:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By "framework" I mean the way that I structure existence, of which I would also include claims to truth. I do not know what more you want to know - it would be quite a lengthy and irrelevant discussion me describing how I structure existence... Logica 22:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

'why must the statement "truth is relative" be an absolute truth? It can be true relative to one or more frameworks, yet not in others.' The ones it isn't true in are absolute frameworks. That means it is both a relative truth and an absolute truth, which is a contradiction.1Z 22:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relativist fallacy

Could someone link to and include some information on the Relativist fallacy?

[edit] Rihard Dawkins

It seems that Richard Dawkins, an atheist, and Pope Benedict share one thing in common. They both condemn relativism. Millbanks (talk) 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] everyday relativism

This article seems like the most general treatment of relativism around. It focuses on relativism on a rather elevated level: philosophy, religion, politics. Most people don't operate on that level on an everyday basis. There's a sort of everyday relativism that's common in the US and (as near as I can tell) the rest of the West. This "lay relativism" (one might call it) deserves some mention, not as a philosophical position that can be argued right or wrong but rather as a cultural trait that's noteworthy as such. I'd like to see a section on "Relativism in public opinion" or something that suggested how common (or uncommon) relativism is in people's regular lives. Since this article is the most general treatment of relativism, it seems like the place for a section on "Relativism in public opinion," or something like it. Jonathan Tweet 14:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give examples of this. It's not clear what you mean from this alone. I could think of everyday relativism being like if someone shows me a chair leg broken off from the main body of the chair and asks someone "what this is"? And you might answer, a club, a piece of trash, firewood, part of a chair, or any number of other attributions based on your intention with respect to the object? Or are you talking about something different entirely. I presume you are since you say "in public opinion" and not in the everyday action of ordinary life. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone explain criticism #6 to me?

This is taken from the criticisms section of the article:

6. Since logic is inherently constant, and that some things are more true than others, it means that "strong" relativism cannot hold true under many conditions. Relativism often ignores how views have different weight to another. An example of a similar phenomenon is the Gay Marriage debate in the U.S. - an example where the majority dictates the rights of the entirety even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views.

Can someone explain what exactly this means? I do not follow the first half of the paragraph (the one that actually pertains to relativism), and the example reads as complete nonsense to me, especially this part:

"...the majority dictates the rights of the entirety even when it doesn't apply to them, as they do not weigh up the effects of their views."

I do not think that: a) The majority in question believes that "it" doesn't apply to them. (Though I'm not sure what "it" is in this context, so the sentence may be true.) The majority believes that allowing gay marriage would undermine the moral standards of their society, which, of course, applies to everybody in that society. b) The majority in question does not "weigh up the effects of its views". Its views are that gay marriage should not be allowed, for the benefit of society; it is aware of the effects; and does not object to them. Tullie 23:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I've received no response here as yet, I'm going to go ahead and remove Criticism #6, as it is detracting from the overall quality of the article, IMO. Tullie 23:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism #5

This criticism is also nonsensical. I've added italics to the below citation:

5. Moral Relativism, in particular, in its more pure forms, often defies logic and acts in ignorance of possible truths. With any given action, it (what is "it"?) has the ability to inflict positive and negative states on other sentient beings, meaning it's impossible for relativism to be "the" law as even with hundreds of factors there is still usually an overall positive or negative outcome, and thus "wrong" would be attempting to seek more negative states than positive ones (why would "wrong" be this? Where does relativist theory claim this?), possibly for personal gain. Moral Relativism either ignores this or seeks to overwrite it. Because certain things, such as logic, do exist and are constant, it is difficult for relativism to hold true in all scenarios.

I may be misunderstanding something, but the argument makes no sense. I'm going to remove it, unless anyone sees any reason why it should stay. Tullie 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes no sense. But nor does anything written about "relativism." The article and discussion pages are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of "postmodern" philosophers like Foucault and Baudrillard, none which is a "relativist." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.73.175.238 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

They are widely considered relativist in aspects of their thought. Do you own the rights to attribution of something as relativist or non? Probably not. But of course they don't subscribe to what people commonly regard as the "dirty relativism" or pure sophistry. This is discussed at length in the book "Scandalous Knowledge" -- how even relativists try to hedge their theories in order to distance themselves from dirty relativism which no serious thinkers ever subscribed to, who are lambasted as subscribing to such for example in the Fashionable Nonesense and similar works of intellectual dishonesty where quotes are cherry picked and the authors run rampant with their own extrapolations based on either incomplete or ideologically motivated readings. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 07:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Another #5 ripe for deletion

5 Regarding the seeming apparent contradiction between the absoluteness of "all is relative", consider that the absolute can, in theory, only exist in whole (monism) only if everything within (relative to) that whole is relative to everything else (also relative to that whole)--"absolute relativity".<<confuses metaphysics with epistemology>> A visual representation of this could be a number of points all connected to each other.[1] <<editor's own page>>However, this can lead to a sort of "fractal absolute relativity" in which, simply by zooming in or out on the "contained absolute relativity" can result in nested absolute relativities[2]<<editor's own page>>--and can also be represented by enclosing a circle ( ) with a larger square touching the circle's outsides [( )], then enclosing the square with a larger circle touching the square's corners ([( )]), and so on infinitely. The contradiction of "absolute relativity" appears and disappears relative to the extent at which the concept is understood (related to). -1Z 01:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

How did I "confuse metaphysics with epistemology", Peter? Yes, I use links to IMAGES to illustrate what I am describing--so what? Regardless, as support, I just read up on dialectical monism which appears to explain how "all is relative" can "work".

-Eep² 13:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How did I "confuse metaphysics with epistemology"

e.g "only EXIST" in whole

"I use links to IMAGES"

images on your own page.

dialectical monism is, again, metaphysics.

-1Z 15:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, so what if I link to images on my page? Dialectical monism is an ontological philosophy. Relativism is a philosophy that includes epistemology AND metaphysics.

-Eep² 15:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

References to an editor's own page are not considered verification of a claim. So the claim is unverified. Relativism as discussed in the article is an epistemological claim.

-1Z 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't use my webpage as VERIFICATION of a claim but, merely, as VISUAL examples of what I am referring to. And, again, so what if relativism is discussed epistemologically? What is your point of pointing that out?

-Eep² 00:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Question to Eep: What is the difference between your "absolute relativity" and a simple complete graph? If it is just a complete graph then (1) there is really nothing new to say about it and (2) what does it have to do with the world? Are you saying that there is a relation in the world such that every object has it to itself and to everything else? What relation would that be? Your paragraph (and your web page) reads like hobby philosophy in desperate need of an actual philosophy book.

-Kronocide 13:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A simple complete graph is one example of absolute relativity, which I state in the criticism rebuttal (and on my webpage). However, absolute relativity can be represented in many ways, of which circular infinity is one aspect of. The relation is that everything is interconnected which is, you're right, nothing really new and yet most people seem to overlook this very basic, simple idea... I won't even bother replying to your ad hominem...

-Eep² 10:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

But to say that everything is connected is just to say that there is a relation, I'm wondering what that relation is. What is it that connects everything to everything else (and itself!)? If you can't say what the relation is that the complete graph illustrates, then what does it have to do with reality?

Kronocide 01:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The relation, as I see it, is also relative. ;) Combine all relationships and you obtain the "absolute relation" (hence, "absolute relativity"). As soon as I do that I'll let you know, 'kay? As far as having to do with reality, well, reality is only part of the relationship, obviously. Fantasy, like any dualistic counterpart, is just as important as reality. This "absolute relationship" won't be entirely understood with logic, since logic is one part of its dualistic counterpart: illogic (absurdity, nonsense, etc). Basically, this means that the "absolute relationship" most likely will and will not be a paradox/contradiction/oxymoron/catch-22/whatever at and not at the same time. Yes, it's confusing and, yes, it also makes sense--that, as I see it, is the only way it "works" but, of course, it depends how you look at it.

-Eep² 07:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly what people fail to realize is that if you read say or hinduist buddhist philosophy you find these kinds of "true contradictions" all the time and it wasn't a deep problem for them, and they seemed to grasp them or accept them more readily than we did, as they had more than two truth values. To say that what they were doing with their non-classical logics wasn't philosophy as the reviewer would seem to believe is simply a deeply ingrained western bias. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I thought. ;-) Kronocide 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Things that "cannot be understood with logic" have no place on philosophy pages. 1Z 16:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a personal bias to think that discussion that does not conform to the rules of aristotelian logic are not a part of philosophy. Indeed, aristotle himself was begging the question in his proof of the law of non-contradiction. See for example research on paraconsistent logics, dialethic logics, and other non-classical logics to see that there are alternatives to classical A logic. DivisionByZer0 (talk) 07:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, it CAN be partially understood logically but, logically, it must include the opposite of logic, illogic, in order to be complete. There is a philosophy where a more illogicality applies: absurdism. -Eep² 17:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

If it belongs under absurdism, move it there. 1Z 18:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It does belong there but it also belongs here. Learn to think relatively... -Eep² 03:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong anywhere in Wikipedia, since it's not accepted theory. Kronocide 13:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's a freakin' RESPONSE to a CRITICISM of relativism. Get over your ego, please... -Eep² 08:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It has no bearing on relativism as discussed in the rest of the article. It just uses similar words.1Z 12:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does, Peter. Again, it is a RESPONSE to a CRITICISM OF the article. Duh. Quit being a wiktator. -Eep² 03:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eep, whether you like it or not Wikipedia is for generally accepted knowledge, not for personal theories that no one else has heard of. This is completely regardless of how good that theory is. So, please do not enter your personal theories about relativism into the article.

[edit] Margolis

"he maintains that a relativistic, many valued logic just might be the most apt for the artworld or history since"

Since when has "many-valued logic" been the same thing as relativism? I mean, the guy might have a perfectly good argument but it needs to be given. It is not standard or obvious.

"relationalism, the doctrine of true-for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different world, or the like. "

That is what everybody else calls relativism.

'For Margolis "true" means true.'

Then he is not a relativist in the sense used in the rest of the article. Which at least needs to be made explicit.

1Z 19:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re-think

This page has nothing to do with philosophy. This page, like Relativism, is absolute bunk. Nobody calls himself a relativist. Relativist and relativism are labels created by the religious right. They are used as derogatory slurs.

These people call themselves relativists.

[3]

[4]

1Z 22:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can put -ism after any word. Doesn't mean anything.

Everybody who doesn't believe the world is flat, which we once knew it was, is a "relativist." Everything but religion is "relativist."

Nietzsche, Foucault and the other philosophers the Christian right calls relativists never called themselves that. I think we all know that the Christian right is addressing a much bigger issue.

I am being serious here. I fear for philosophy. We are fast entering la-la-land of Ayn Rand here. Then there will be nothing. Then there will be nothing but philosophy according to Fox News.

I changed the headline to be more neutral. Please do. But keep on debating.

Your comments look like a bunch of random, unsupported opinions to me. 1Z 15:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This page really needs to be scrapped and re-written from the ground up by a good philosopher. It's an important topic, and one that people will probably want to access a lot...but the current treatment of it here simply isn't competent.

You say everybody but the religious are relativists. I think you're misunderstanding relativism. Practically everybody in the western world (and probably the whole of the world) believes in truth. We believe there is an independent truth of what actually happened. Just look at our criminal justice systems, where we try to find this truth.2nd Piston Honda 04:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You say everybody but the religious are relativists.

I don't say that. 1Z (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Responses section problem.

The following section is so confusing that I have read it ten times and still do not understand what it is saying. Can someone please explain what this section is trying to say? The paragraph itself seems nonsensical to me.

Responses Contradictions such as "all beliefs are equally worthless" are nonsensical, as they constitute arguing from the premise. Once you have said if the X is absolute (e.g. "all beliefs are equally worthless") you have presupposed relativism is false. And one cannot prove a statement using that statement as a premise. There is a contradiction, but the contradiction is between relativism and the presuppositions of absoluteness in the ordinary logic used. Nothing has been proven wrong and nothing has been proven in and of itself, only the known incompatibility has been restated inefficiently.

--Logiboy123 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An Anon IP keeps adding bad arguments.1Z (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are so obviously skewed in your own beliefs against relativism, that your lack of objectivity in this article borders on propaganda. This is most clear in your long list of links connecting to extremist, right-wing, Christian, American, "Scientists". I have never read an article on here that was so clearly about the author's agenda as your truly weak and subjective entry. Do those who value some semblance of a neutral assessment a favour and kindly remove your petty opinions from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.89.141 (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting a breakdown

I have to admit that I'm having trouble reading the article, and understanding the most basic concepts of relativism. It's a subject that I am interested in, but have little pre-existing knowledge of. In my opinion, the article jumps right into a large mess of confusing concepts. I appreciate that there is so much detail and in-depth discussion of multiple views - the more information, the better - but... can someone knowledgeable put in some sort of practically worded definition? Or better yet, some basic, every-day type of examples near the beginning of the article, to familiarize a wider range of readers? *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I plan to revise the article as follows:

1) Shorten the lede, moving some material to new section

2) Expand "forms of relativism". Mention social constuctivism and and the Stong Programme

3) Add a section on Wittgenstein

4) Add a section on Setven Hales

5) Rewrite the section on Margolis.

6) restructure the 'advocates' section, separating out those whoe status as relativists is contentious (Rorty, Wittgenstein, Derrida).

7) Expand the "critics" section, adding David Hirsch, Paul Bhogossian, etc

8) inclduding moving the material on religion there

9) Restructure pro and con. Initial arguments for relativism need to be made. Human Universals as a counterargument to Descriptive Relativism needs to be mentioned. The political aspect of the debate needs to be mentioned.

10) Clarify the alternatives to relativism -- absolutism, objectivism, realism, etc.

11) Improve the level of citation.

This will all proceed quite gradually , for lack of time among other reasons

1Z (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is anyone a relativist?

"'Relativism' is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought." -Richard Rorty, "Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism"

from here

[edit] Absolute relativism

Does the article make a strong/clear enough distinction between mild and extreme relativism? And it doesn't seem to emphasise sufficiently that the main objectors to relativism seem to be (a) scientists and (b) religious folks. The reasons for that might profitably be explored further. Maybe someone can comment? thanks Peter morrell 15:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The article should make such a distinction. Rorty says relativism is the view that everything is as true as everything else, and that no-one believes in it. Stanley Fish says relativism is open-mindedness and tolerance, and that almost everyone believes in it.1Z (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, maybe these points can be added to the article along with the quotes you mention. Peter morrell 07:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry

Regarding the Catholic Church and relativism, I noticed this atypical 1884 document called Humanum Genus which condemns both relativism and Freemasonry, and claims that both are closely tied together. [5] It's unclear what is the historical etymology for relativism, but 1884 is a fairly ancient date for this kind of word. Anyways, it would a good idea to further describe how Masonic ideology and philosophy are conductive of relativism. ADM (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined terms

"Alethic" should be removed from this article or a definition should be supplied -- I have never seen this term in philosophic writings. Wikipedia articles should be written so that they are accessible to non-experts who don't know all the jargon of this or that field. If the jargon of the field is used it should have an entry or it should be defined for the reader DivisionByZer0 (talk) 04:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Not a good article (very bad, in fact)

This is in a really sorry state. It contains almost nothing but obscurities and nonsense. From the very beginning, it uses terminology that seems rather random, and does not reflect philosophical usage. It is full of refences to people who just aren't at all important, and contains loads of laudatory words praising certain authors and/or theories. It is full of passages like (just to give few examples):

"Two of the most prominent modern opponents of relativism are also adherents of differing forms of absolutism: Richard Dawkins and the Roman Catholic Church. Interestingly, they seem to lambast against each other as much as against relativism."

-What does this matter? Why should they not be against each other? etc...

"Another counter-argument[citation needed] uses Bertrand Russell's Paradox, which refers to the "List of all lists that do not contain themselves". Kurt Gödel, Jorge Luis Borges, and Jean Baudrillard have famously debated this paradox."

- Apparent nonsense again. It is impossible to figure out the supposed argument. This also suggests that Borges, Gödel and Baudrillard acutally had a discussion about it!(Funny idea, if you know anything about them, but utterly false.) Also, the paradox (in its standard form) is definitely stated wrong!

The list about such lousy passages could go on, for I find almost nothing good or informative about this. It should be complety rewritten from the start. Only qualified philosophical opinions should be discussed, and only qualified philosophers cited. SEP's article could be a guideline: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamwodeham (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

SOFIXIT! Pick up that editing machete, and be bold! Fences&Windows 23:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)