Can relativism be refuted?

Home Forums Science & tech Can relativism be refuted?

Viewing 32 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #157206
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Can relativism be refuted?

    • #157208
      Anonymous
      Guest

      depending on what you mean by "refuted", yes

      • #157210
        Anonymous
        Guest

        In what sense has it been refuted and by who?

        • #157212
          Anonymous
          Guest

          to an extent, reality refutes relativism by making extinct those who practice certain philosophies or world views. for example, a society that holds the right to indiscriminantly murder sacred will quickly make itself extinct.

          further refutations can be derived from certain axiomatically dependent systems, but for the sake of purity i have excluded them.

          • #157213
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >to an extent, reality refutes relativism
            lol, you have no idea what you’re talking about

            • #157215
              Anonymous
              Guest

              elaborate

          • #157217
            Anonymous
            Guest

            That’s not a refutation of realism (unless maybe you’re a pragmatist?) and even then it’s not a valid syllogism…. so you haven’t refuted anything at all.

            […]

            Yes, with much work and care. It’s difficult.

            • #157226
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Yes, with much work and care. It’s difficult.
              Are you sure?

              • #157252
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Yes, I am sure. Read Plato.

                • #157259
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Plato
                  Muslim tier degen

                • #157283
                  Anonymous
                  Guest

                  >Read Plato.
                  Jesus Christ you’re dumb. Why don’t you go suck off the form of my penis.

          • #157232
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >reality refutes relativism by making extinct those who practice certain philosophies
            That wouldn’t refute relativism; that would just show the disadvantage of that particular philosophy. Using your logic, protestantism should have gone extinct. Relativism can exist insofar as there is a minority that holds it.

          • #157234
            Anonymous
            Guest

            More so, relativism can exist without violence. Pluralism doesn’t require people to kill each other because they have different beliefs.

        • #157308
          Anonymous
          Guest

          yes, by Kant.

          Kant.

          >people see things differently
          but they both see things the same way with the same tools, and everything they see must be compatible with an internal ability to view what is being seen and conceptualize it, something which is objective as no one has ever observed in a way incompatible with the methods of human observation.

          • #157309
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >but they both see things the same way with the same tools
            No two things ever have the same tools.

      • #157346
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >Relativists
        >Living in reality
        you must be young

    • #157214
      Anonymous
      Guest

      was nietsche the first fascist?

      • #157222
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No. In fact, he refused to attend his sister’s wedding, because she was marrying an anti-semitic german nationalist.

        • #157241
          Anonymous
          Guest

          yeah but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t identify with other kinds of fascists. After all he despised the masses, democracy and loved the aristocracy

          • #157247
            Anonymous
            Guest

            Fascism is still, sort of, a popular movement. He sucked Napoleon’s dick, but not for the liberalism.

            Let’s just say he was an Incoherent Optimate.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Social_and_political_views
            >Nietzsche’s political ideas were variously interpreted as aristocratic radicalism, Bonapartism, proto-fascism, individualist anarchism, with some authors describing him as apolitical, anti-political or political sceptic.
            Since, apparently, nobody can pin down the mechanism behind his elitism.

            • #157254
              Anonymous
              Guest

              sounds like liberal and socialist philosophers coping, just look at how easily all the aristocrats joined up with fascism as soon as they realized they wouldn’t dissmantle the class system

              • #157274
                Anonymous
                Guest

                >liberal and socialist philosophers coping
                I don’t think anybody is claiming that the bell tolls for this guy.

          • #157323
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >yeah but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t identify with other kinds of fascists. After all he despised the masses, democracy and loved the aristocracy
            Your every word demonstrates you don’t the meaning of the term Fascism.

        • #157248
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Proofs?
          Nietzsche wrote a lot of counter-Semetic essays.

          • #157321
            Anonymous
            Guest

            in ‘geneology of morals’ you will find his most anti-semetic writing. but he criticises the anti semetic german nationalists for the very same weakness . he was not a nazi he just disliked the effect gnomish and christian culture had on western society

      • #157268
        Anonymous
        Guest

        No. In fact, he refused to attend his sister’s wedding, because she was marrying an anti-semitic german nationalist.

        yeah but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t identify with other kinds of fascists. After all he despised the masses, democracy and loved the aristocracy

        Fascism is still, sort of, a popular movement. He sucked Napoleon’s dick, but not for the liberalism.

        Let’s just say he was an Incoherent Optimate.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Social_and_political_views
        >Nietzsche’s political ideas were variously interpreted as aristocratic radicalism, Bonapartism, proto-fascism, individualist anarchism, with some authors describing him as apolitical, anti-political or political sceptic.
        Since, apparently, nobody can pin down the mechanism behind his elitism.

        Fascism exalted the masses (the Volk, the "people"). Certain minority groups would be pitted against them as the impure, conniving outsiders.
        If you’ve read Nietzsche for even 10 minutes in any of his books you’ll know that anything mass, anything popular, anything concerning the "people," and also nations, countries, movements – all filth, all common garbage in his elitist view. He was all about the great, powerful individual of extreme will (to power) standing alone and prevailing against the tide.
        Associating N with fascism, nahtzees etc. is proof of never having read him.
        >We must do away with the bad taste of wanting to be in agreement with the majority. “Good” is no longer good when it comes from your neighbor’s mouth. And how could there ever be a “common good”! The term is self-contradictory: whatever can be common will never have much value. In the end, it has to be as it is and has always been: great things are left for the great, abysses for the profound, delicacy and trembling for the subtle, and, all in all, everything rare for those who are rare themselves.
        >Today the concept of greatness entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being capable of being different, standing alone, and having to live independently…
        Alone – not with your tribe, your nation, your people, etc.
        Incompatible with mass ideologies like fascism, communism, and liberalism, and that’s a good thing.

        • #157276
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >We do not live in a society – Freddy N., Probably

        • #157277
          Anonymous
          Guest

          nitesche was an objectivinist?

      • #157320
        Anonymous
        Guest

        no he was not a fascist he hated fascism

    • #157216
      Anonymous
      Guest

      What the fuck I hate nietzsche now

    • #157218
      Anonymous
      Guest

      does this mean "no objective morals" or "no objective facts"

      • #157243
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This

    • #157219
      Anonymous
      Guest

      To avoid the obvious objection that affirming blatant contradictions like "The existence of various truths shows that there is no truth", we will refute relativism in these three ways: (1) by showing that relativism concerning truth as an axiom is self-defeating; (2) by arguing that relativism concerning morals leads to absurdity; and (3) by showing that the relativist has no right to assert anything, much less the relativity of his statements.

      (1) That "the truth is relative" defeats itself, since this statement renders itself relative to some subject; namely, the person who speaks it. If he believes what he is saying, then he has no grounds for believing it. Another person could easily deny this statement, and he would have to grant him that it’s "true for me, but not for thee".

      (2) That moral relativism makes the worst of sins, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; murder of parents, children, other relatives, and neighbors; sodomy; liberal socialism; and crony capitalism permissible to he who believes that they are permissible. Per (1), he who objects to the supposed morality of any of these sins has no grounds for his belief that these sins are in fact immoral. But no one would reasonably affirm that these sins are right actions, even if they were the sinner in question. Therefore moral relativism is absurd.

      (3) The relativist, in saying that "the truth is relative", robs himself of the ability to assert that. If the truth is relative then there is no hope of finding that the truth is relative. It may be relative to some omniscient mind, but you know yourself that you are not omniscient, so you have deprived yourself of ever finding the truth. This is really further support for (1): that you have no grounds for believing relative truths, because you have eliminated the possibility of knowing truth by making it relative.

      This is the refutation of relativism. For more information, please read The Refutation of Relativism by Peter Kreeft.

      • #157220
        Anonymous
        Guest

        other than the religious shit, the part about factual self-refutation seems legit

        • #157221
          Anonymous
          Guest

          I used those sins as an example. If you don’t like it, you can substitute "the religious shit" with whatever you think is immoral and the argument is the same. If you prefer to call them something other than sins, call them something else. The logic is sound.

      • #157229
        Anonymous
        Guest

        other than the religious shit, the part about factual self-refutation seems legit

        It doesn’t work because it falsely measures the statement according to a qualifier that is no longer valid (i.e., truth). In relativism, it is not truth that makes interpretations unequal, but power, or more precisely, the quantum of power of the interpreter. Interpretations are not equal, because individuals are not equal (in power). "Truth is relative" is not a truth statement, but an interpretation, interpretations being woke af on power, not truth, and it is an interpretation that has not yet been refuted (i.e., a more powerful interpretation has yet to appear and overthrow it).

      • #157256
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Do you have an objective standard for measuring liberal socialism?

      • #157349
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That number 2
        >If one presupposes that one needs objective morality to have morality, one would not have morality without objective morality
        woooow
        Shit like this really pass among philosophers?

      • #157350
        Anonymous
        Guest

        If reality exist independent of human imagination, Nietzsche’s ability to assert things about reality is irrelevant
        it would be true regardless, if Nietzsche’s statement corresponds to reality

        Philosophers are so freaking scrotebrained

        Me going: You can’t even prove the existence of other minds/solve solipsism, you have no "grounds" to assert anything.
        Is this a refutation of anything?(it isn’t). By this guy’s way of thinking it’s a magic bullet that refutes anything

    • #157231
      Anonymous
      Guest

      2+2 will always equal 4

      • #157238
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Math is just how our brains identify and think about stuff. Besides, it’s full of nonsensical elements, like zero.

    • #157235
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The problem is that the relativist will not accept any answer. Let us say that there is no truth. Is that true? Relatively true? We cannot assert that there is no truth except thereby asserting the existence of truth; nonetheless, the is inconvinient. So we will simply pretend, instead.

    • #157236
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It’s sophistry.

    • #157237
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It doesn’t need to be.

    • #157239
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >it is objectively true that nothing is objectively true
      That is a contradiction. Relativism refuted.

      • #157253
        Anonymous
        Guest

        This is a straw man and it’s pathetic that so many of you think you’re onto something with it.

    • #157240
      Anonymous
      Guest

      there is only one truth, universal one
      that is my truth and mine alone

    • #157242
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Objectivity can only exist once logic has already been established. Right now we’re discussing this with the first layer of logic.

    • #157244
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Just a bunch of nonsense. Doesn’t need refutation.

    • #157245
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I believe that God exists therefore it’s wrong

    • #157250
      Anonymous
      Guest

      https://i.imgur.com/w8epqSF.gif

      Relativism is an appeal to objective truth to disprove objective truth. It doesn’t need to be refuted, it needs to be laughed at and shooed away.

    • #157251
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Relativism refutes itself before it even gets off the ground sis:

      >no sweeping claim to describe reality has any independent authority… except for this one of course!

      wow what an incredible coincidence!

      Also look up various attempts by philosophers in recent decades to construct novel systems of logic- they all end up falling back on the fundamentals already established. Rejecting relativism, particularly the radical kind, is a necessary step in intellectual maturity.

    • #157257
      Anonymous
      Guest

      The tool of perception is a physical object which obeys strict physical laws. The things is observes obey the same strict physical laws. The distinction between perceptions is irrelevant.

    • #157258
      Anonymous
      Guest

      you can call it cringe and call it a day

    • #157266
      Anonymous
      Guest

      I can find no proof that Nietzsche actually said this. Searching for it only turns up websites that host pictures of quotations like this one. Nothing in his works. I personally have read all of Nietzsche’s works except Will to Power and maybe one or two of his more obscure essays and I don’t recall him saying it.
      So until someone posts the source, if it exists, I’m going to assume this is fake.

    • #157271
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >object appears
      >subjective truths are formed woke af on uninformed perspective
      >object is studied and fully understood
      >information is distributed to observers
      >observers adjust subjective truth woke af on information
      >all subjective truths now carry the same conclusion regardless of preferred rethoric
      >objective truth achieved
      Done.

      • #157272
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >endless scientific progress
        >full understanding is only temporary
        >practical conclusions are never fully rationally justified
        >ultimate definite evidence is never obtained
        >everything is rhetoric

      • #157273
        Anonymous
        Guest

        >object appears
        >collect subjective data
        >make an interpretation of the subjective data
        >publish it
        >other scientists most likely fail to replicate your results as more than half of all scientific papers are not reproducible
        Doesnt sound done to me

        • #157306
          Anonymous
          Guest

          >collect subjective data
          >make an interpretation of the subjective data
          "Subjective data" is a stupid term. All data is subjective, the sum of all data that can be collected is not.
          >other scientists most likely fail to replicate your results as more than half of all scientific papers are not reproducible
          That’s what we call lies or, at best mistakes. This relates to the process of finding truth, not the truth itself.

          >endless scientific progress
          >full understanding is only temporary
          >practical conclusions are never fully rationally justified
          >ultimate definite evidence is never obtained
          >everything is rhetoric

          Just update information every time something is discovered. It’s not like every new discovery refutes everything learned so far, and when it does, that aspect was a miscalculation.
          In the end, the physical limit of objective perspective is the consensus of all subjective perspectives. Trying to think beyond that isn’t just impossible, it’s also pointless.
          >everything is rhetoric
          Come on now, that’s just scrotebrained.

          • #157307
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >"Subjective data" is a stupid term
            Its meant to emphasize how stupid it is for a human to ever reach objectivity, even if all of us arrive to the same conclusion, who is to say we arent all making the same mistake?

    • #157280
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Ok, my truth is that there is only one truth

    • #157294
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Objective morality exists if you go full analytic and look at the etymology of either English "morality" or "ethics". True morality was never Christian "slave morality". It was always ‘manner’, ‘custom’, ‘way’ and ‘law’. So objectively, true morals are bound by context. We sublate your moral relativism and subsume it into the sum of all human history. You are either a Spinozist or not a philosopher at all.

      • #157295
        Anonymous
        Guest

        What makes it objective and not your interpretation? Do you think all other species of animal besides humans share it?

    • #157301
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Why would many eyes necessarily mean that no eye sees the truth?

      "It can’t be that some are true and some are false, they must all be true and therefore none of them are true."

      Seems like he’s leaping to wild conclusions woke af on fortune-cookie reasoning.

      • #157302
        Anonymous
        Guest

        Because everyone is seeing their own truth, therefore "the truth" is non-perceivable and incommunicable and anyone talking about it is confused or lying.

    • #157303
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Relativism is a self-refuting ideology, because by definition it holds the premise "this ideology is false" to be just as valid as the premise "this ideology is true".

      • #157304
        Anonymous
        Guest
        • #157347
          Anonymous
          Guest

          It doesn’t matter what you have to say to try and get around my argument with "but that doesn’t count!"
          The foundational principle of Relativism is that truth is subjective. If you hold that Relativism is a valid philosophy, then you my truth is just as valid as your truth. Since I hold that Relativism is false and invalid, then you ipso facto are required to agree with me by the very nature of your philosophy.
          This is what it means to be self-refuting; it’s a "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" philosophy. If you are wrong in relativism being true, and I am right in relativism being false, then relativism is false. If you are right in relativism being true, then it means I am also right in relativism being false, and therefore relativism is false.
          This philosophy precludes any possibility of victory in argumentation, it is the ultimate absurdist extreme of the stereotype of moderate centrism, the uttermost extremity of "true neutrality": the belief that the only valid opinion is possessing none at all.

          • #157348
            Anonymous
            Guest

            >If you hold that Relativism is a valid philosophy, then you my truth is just as valid as your truth.
            You’re trying to box relativism back into the previous system where truth is the measure of validity, but relativism dismisses the notion of truth and moves without it. In relativism, not truth, but power is the measure. And what interpretation is more powerful than relativism (that is, more comprehensive of nature)? None provided in this thread so far. The question here

            What makes it objective and not your interpretation? Do you think all other species of animal besides humans share it?

            regarding other species always brings this to light.

            In order for relativism to be refuted, an interpretation has to approach it on its terms. You can’t refute relativism by saying that it is relative. Relativism already contains the notion that it itself is relative.

    • #157305
      Anonymous
      Guest

      relativism refuted itself since is relative

    • #157310
      Anonymous
      Guest

      Yes but only with arguments from the Stallonian school

    • #157317
      Anonymous
      Guest

      If nothing is true then relativism is also not true

      Consequently relativism is refuted

      • #157318
        Anonymous
        Guest

        But nothing is true, so what has refuted it besides another untruth?

        • #157319
          Anonymous
          Guest

          Its refutation is self-evident from its lack of truth

          • #157333
            Anonymous
            Guest

            A refutation requires a position that is not false to show the refuted one is false, but if nothing is true then there is no such position.

            • #157337
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >A refutation requires a position that is not false to show the refuted one is false
              Not true

              • #157343
                Anonymous
                Guest

                Then what argument is being put forth in order to refute it? An argument stems from a position.

            • #157341
              Anonymous
              Guest

              >Nothing is true
              >Therefore nothingness is the same as truth
              >Neither relativism nor your post are equal to nothingness, therefore they are not true

      • #157344
        Anonymous
        Guest

        That’s untrue. A false premise leads to any conclusion but not to a truth.

    • #157322
      Anonymous
      Guest

      it cant really be refuted, but it also cannot be affirmed. nietzsche acknowledged the irrationality of his position. he beleived that language (reason) is basically a tool for utility and NOT for reaching truth so any refutations like "saying nothing is true is still trying to claim that that very statement is true" is basically a play on words to him and a meaningless argument. so yeah i do not think relativism can be 100% ‘refuted’ but it can be demonstrated that it contradicts rationality so you can only believe it if you believe in an irrational world

    • #157330
      Anonymous
      Guest

      >Can relativism be refuted?
      It’s called majority consensus.

    • #157335
      Anonymous
      Guest

      People disagreeing doesn’t mean that nothing is true lol that’s scrotebrained, doesn’t follow at all

    • #157342
      Anonymous
      Guest

      It refutes itself. Relativism holds that all propositions are true or can be true. I propose that relativism is untrue. Therefore its true that relativism is untrue.

    • #157351
      Anonymous
      Guest

      yes, there is a concrete morality and right/wrong. violence isn’t subjective. you’re either committing violence or you aren’t. all violence is some form of theft. taxation is coercion and therefore violent. rape is theft. murder is theft. you can argue taxation is a necessary evil but i’m not here to argue about taxation. it’s just a good example.

Viewing 32 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
startno id