Sorry if this is not in the right place. A few days ago I read a post by J.J. and he mentioned "post-modern relativism", or it might have been "post-relative modernism". Whatever. I've tried to locate the post but have been unable. Anyway, he said that under this system of thought, that truth is relative, and by that, I understood him to say that if someone believes something to be true, then is it true, to that person at least, even if to nobody else.
Apologies if I have misunderstood, but I do not understand. I am not a PhD., scientist, philosopher or psychologist, but I don't understand how truth can be relative. Perhaps this is one of the great philosophical contradictions of time. Or is it that I'm just not too bright.
.
Can anyone explain in words of relatively less than one syllable? I love to create waves.
Thanks in advance.???
It can't. "Post-modern relativism" is a generally pejorative term used to refer to the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth and that your own "truth" is defined entirely by your beliefs and opinions.Originally Posted by bindeweede
There is an element of truth in the idea that one can never directly perceive objective reality, and therefore no matter how thoroughly one investigates the facts there is always the possibility of deceit (for instance, you could be living in a Matrix-like fake world where nothing is actually real). It is also the case that one can influence one's own perception of reality through beliefs and opinions, but this is not the same as stating that there is no objective reality.
I don't imagine that there are that many people who actually believe in post-modern relativism in the full sense of the term, although more moderate subjectivist perspectives are certainly widespread. Aspects do crop up in other contexts though, for example the "appeal to other ways of knowing" which is sometimes used as a last resort by woos who can't deal with reasoned arguments so prefer to declare themselves exempt from them.
Last edited by Araneus; 30th August 2007 at 08:50 PM.
Araneus,
Many thanks for your reply. For over 6 years, I have been a befriender to someone who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia. He is convinced that the Government, IRA, MI5, the police and other organisations are "out to get" him. Even little children and radio broadcasters attack him verbally, in his reality. That is his perception of "the truth". He has even taken the UK Government to the European Court of Human Rights over his situation, and I admire him for fighting what he regards as his battle.
But, he is suffering from a major psychotic illness. His perception of reality would not be the same as that of the professionals who are trying to treat his condition. Are you saying that people who believe in post-modern realism are suffering from a very minor form of mental illness? You almost certainly are not, but I wonder how, and where anyone draws the borderline.
I think the definition of mental illness rests quite heavily on how it affects your life. There's a big blurry area between woo beliefs and genuine illness. In your friend's case, it is clear that he has trouble functioning in normal society, and is therefore classed as mentally ill. Someone who believes throwing salt over their shoulder cancels out bad luck has no trouble relating to other people or the world and are therefore not judged to be ill. The grey area comes with things like psychics. Generally, someone who believes in psychics and vists them occaisionally is not necessarily ill. However, someone who spends tens of thousands of pounds on them is likely to have at least a form of addiction, if not worse problems. It's not the beliefs that show someone is ill, it's what they do with them.#
When it comes to anti-materialist philosophies, as far as I know no-one ever actually does anything about it. They can waffle on for hours about how we are all in an illusions and don't really know anything, but when it comes down to it, they live their lives in exactly the same way as everyone else. If they spent all their time on computers looking for Morpheus then they might have a problem, but if they act exactly as they would in the real world, it really makes no difference if they believe we are in the Matrix or not.
In one of his books Richard Dawkins has a go at relativism. There is apparently some tribe who believe the sun is just a few hundred feet above the treetops.
Dawkins imagines a strict relativist in a jetliner and says, "Show me a relativist at three thousand feet and I'll show you a hypocrite"
Aren't there different types of truth, though? Isn't "the table is wooden" a different kind of statement to "it is hot today"? To my (admittedly simple in these regards) way of thinking, the table is either made of wood, or not; there is no possibility of relativism. With the question of whether the temperature is high or not, doesn't that depend on what the speaker feels to be true relative to another speaker?
Well, you can try saying there are different types of truth. But then you'll need a new word for the vernacular, humdrum, nonrelativist "truth".
As for your question about temperature: you can tell the difference between:
1. Is it hot? and
2. Do you feel hot?
Whatever the answer to 1, you can intelligibly follow up with the question " Are you sure?" or "How do you know?" You can't do that with 2: the answer you have heard may be disingenuous, but it cannot be erroneous.
No I don't think that one needs a new word. There seems to me a clear difference between objective reality, and an opinion or belief. To any given individual, both represent truth, but the objective reality truth is one that would (usually) inevitably be shared by everyone.
I think this is a question for Alan Sokal.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks