#Relativism

[philosophicalconservatism]

A cultural ideology that is based on relativism must inevitably lead to mediocrity. Where there is no criticism, there is increasingly no excellence. For to "excel" is by definition to be distinguished in a positive way from other things. It is a declaration that one thing is preferable to another.

[futilereality]

[areadersquoteslibrary]

'"Good and evil are the prejudices of God" — said the snake.'

- Friedrich Nietzsche,

'The Gay Science'

[blackswaneuroparedux]

His [Foucault's] vision of European culture as the institutionalised form of oppressive power is taught everywhere as gospel, to students who have neither the culture nor the religion to resist it. Only in France is he widely regarded as a fraud.

- Roger Scruton on Michel Foucault

During student protests in Paris in 1968, Roger Scruton, a francophile, watched students overturn cars to erect barricades and tear up cobblestones to throw at police. It was at that moment he realised he was a conservative.

For Scruton, he didn’t think much of Jean Paul Satre, the father of existentialism, who cobbled together the essence of his philosophy from Alexandre Kojève's reading of Hegel in his famous seminar at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes in the 1930s. His listeners included Bataille, Aron, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan and Simone de Beauvoir. Each of them drew something different from him. For Sartre, the idea of the self-created individual with radical freedom. Expressed very early on in La nausée, this freedom is a source of anguish for a consciousness which not only considers that the surrounding world has no meaning other than that which it can possibly confer on it, but which experiences itself as a kind of nothingness.

How, starting from such a philosophy, does Sartre arrive at the idea of commitment to revolution and socialism? It is a mystery. Scruton wrote, "According to the metaphysics enunciated in Being and Nothingness, the correct answer to the question "To what shall I commit myself?" should be: What does it matter, as long as you can want it as a law for yourself." "But this is not the answer offered by Sartre, whose commitment is to an ideal that is at odds with his own philosophy.”

With his theory of episteme, Foucault gives us a new version of the Marxist concept of ideology.

Despite what some might think, Scruton wasn’t entirely dismissive of Foucault whose thought was more subtle and interesting than Sartre’s. Scruton confesses a certain tenderness for Michel Foucault's style, for his flamboyant imagination. But Scruton does not see his archaeology of knowledge as a great innovation. According to a habit shared by many French left-wing intellectuals, like Sartre himself, Foucault intended to tear away the veils behind which the relations of domination are hidden, to unmask the deceptions of others. With Sartre, it was in the name of a vague nostalgia for personal authenticity. Foucault, on the other hand, looked for the secret structures of power behind all institutions - and even at work in language.

But the historical horizon on which Foucault projected this quest, which postulated a rupture between the "classical age" of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the bourgeois world that would follow the French Revolution, showed that, despite his claims, Foucault had remained a prisoner of Marxism. Moreover, as Scruton would write, “his theory of episteme is a rehash of the Marxist theory of ideology. Moreover, he considers power only from the perspective of domination. “

But the main criticism that Scruton finds fault with Foucault is the one found in the post-enlightenment thinkers: relativism. If each era generates the discursive formations that correspond to its system of power, including the sciences, then truth does not exist. Everything is discourse...

Photo: Jean-Paul Satre and Michel Foucault take a stand during the Paris Student Riots, May 1968.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Objectivity

Objectivity is a cornerstone of philosophical inquiry, often considered crucial for achieving impartiality and truth. It represents a stance or a method that aims to eliminate personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences from the process of understanding and evaluating reality. This exploration will delve into the philosophical dimensions of objectivity, examining its nature, significance, and the debates surrounding its attainability and application in various fields.

Understanding Objectivity

Objectivity refers to the quality of being free from personal biases, emotions, and subjective influences. It is often associated with impartiality, fairness, and neutrality. In philosophy, objectivity is essential for evaluating claims, theories, and arguments based on evidence and reason rather than personal feelings or opinions.

Philosophical Perspectives on Objectivity

Epistemological Objectivity:

In epistemology, objectivity is related to the pursuit of knowledge that is independent of individual perspectives. Objective knowledge is considered to be universally valid and verifiable. The quest for objective truth involves using rigorous methods of inquiry, such as the scientific method, to ensure that findings are reproducible and not influenced by subjective factors.

Moral Objectivity:

Moral objectivity pertains to the idea that certain moral truths or principles are universally valid, regardless of individual beliefs or cultural practices. Ethical theories like moral realism argue that moral facts exist independently of human opinions and can be discovered through rational reflection and ethical reasoning.

Aesthetic Objectivity:

Aesthetic objectivity concerns the possibility of making objective judgments about art and beauty. While aesthetic experiences are often deeply personal and subjective, some philosophers argue that there are objective criteria for evaluating artistic quality, such as coherence, complexity, and emotional impact.

Scientific Objectivity:

In the sciences, objectivity is critical for ensuring the reliability and validity of research findings. Scientific objectivity involves the use of standardized methods, peer review, and replication to minimize biases and errors. The goal is to produce knowledge that can be independently verified and is not influenced by the researchers' personal beliefs or desires.

Debates and Challenges

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity:

A central debate in the philosophy of objectivity revolves around the tension between objective and subjective perspectives. Critics argue that complete objectivity is unattainable because all human understanding is inherently shaped by individual experiences, cultural contexts, and cognitive biases. This viewpoint suggests that objectivity is an ideal rather than an achievable state.

Relativism:

Relativism challenges the notion of objective truth by arguing that what is considered true or valid depends on cultural, social, or individual perspectives. According to relativism, there are no absolute truths, and all knowledge is context-dependent. This poses a significant challenge to the idea of objectivity, especially in fields like ethics and aesthetics.

The Role of Values in Objectivity:

Another critical issue is the role of values and interests in shaping what is considered objective. Some philosophers argue that values inevitably influence the process of inquiry and that striving for value-free objectivity is neither possible nor desirable. Instead, they advocate for transparency about the values that guide research and decision-making.

Feminist and Postcolonial Critiques:

Feminist and postcolonial philosophers have critiqued traditional notions of objectivity, arguing that they often reflect the perspectives of dominant groups while marginalizing others. These critiques highlight the importance of considering diverse viewpoints and the potential biases in what is deemed objective knowledge.

The philosophy of objectivity addresses fundamental questions about the nature of truth, knowledge, and impartiality. It challenges us to consider how we can strive for fair and unbiased understanding while recognizing the limitations and influences of our subjective perspectives. By exploring the philosophical dimensions of objectivity, we gain deeper insights into the complexities of human cognition and the pursuit of knowledge.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Now, it is the position, generally speaking, of our intellectual community that while we may not like this, we might think of this as "wrong" in Boston or Palo Alto, who are we to say that the proud denizens of an ancient culture are wrong to force their wives and daughters to live in cloth bags?

And who are we to say, even, that they're wrong to beat them with lengths of steel cable, or throw battery acid in their faces if they decline the privilege of being smothered in this way?

Well, who are we not to say this? Who are we to pretend that we know so little about human well-being that we have to be non-judgmental about a practice like this?

I'm not talking about voluntary wearing of a veil -- women should be able to wear whatever they want, as far as I'm concerned.

But what does voluntary mean in a community where, when a girl gets raped, her father's first impulse, rather often, is to murder her out of shame?

Just let that fact detonate in your brain for a minute: Your daughter gets raped, and what you want to do is kill her.

What are the chances that represents a peak of human flourishing?"

-- Sam Harris, "Science Can Answer Moral Questions"

[words-of-wonderland]

What money can't buy: the Moral Limits of Markets (Micheal J. Sandel)

Sandel's lectures raise moral objections to market expansion, especially the commodification of certain "goods": surrogacy, military enlistment, and the wealth gap in democratic nations. Sandel takes a two-pronged attack on undesirable commodification: 1) coercion and 2) corruption. I found the appeal to corruption to be the more interesting but also finicky. (p 104) Sandel references utilitarian decision-making as a form of market-orientated thinking that degrades the goods. He specifically notes how each individual consequential consideration is flattened into pieces of utility. He calls this process, and the conversion into monetary terms a "translation" and posits that value can be lost in the process (p 105). I am partial to the argument, agreeing strongly with Sandel that commodification of certain goods degrades their value in the appraisal and is morally inappropriate, but I think that the nuance of each item, event, and being that we want to preserve by not commodifying will become an issue in defending the claim not to flatten their nuance. This is because as Sandel points out on page 106, the distinction between coercion and corruption is that coercion always appeals to consent while corruption appeals to multiple ideals from overlapping, conflicting, and simply differing ideologies -- ie the appeal against the wealth gap draws upon republican civic virtues that apply in self-government, surrogacy on the elusive definitions of parenthood that can differ between cultures, etc). How do we argue for the preservation of value nuance from multiple ideologies without flattening the nuances or committing to relativism in the process?

[xelastarkly]

Current Guardian

Armor/Loadout

[pratchettquotes]

"And what you've got there, my friend, is patriotism. My country, right or wrong."

"You should love your country," said Shufti.

"Okay, what part?" the voice of Tonker demanded, from the far corner of the tent. "The morning sunlight on the mountains? The horrible food? The damn mad Abominations? All of my country except whatever bit Strappi is standing on?"

"But we are at war!"

"Yes, that's where they've got you," said Polly.

"Well, I'm not buying into it. It's all trickery. They keep you down and when they piss off some other country, you have to fight for them! It's only your country when they want you to get killed!" said Tonker.

Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment

[a-contemplative-soul]

“When relativism is used in extreme levels it turns into nihilism”

Author: Me

[gamer2002]

Some people argue against morality by insisting that it makes good people feel superior about themselves.

But if a good person is not better and more admirably than a not good person, then what are they?

Stupid fools who make their own life harder by not getting what they want in any way? By bothering themselves to make things better for others?

Either good people are better or the not good people are the better ones. There is no third option here. If you want to argue that the good ones shouldn't feel better about themselves, be honest who you think should.

[wisdomfish]

In a world truly without objective values, a person might choose to live like Gandhi rather than like Saddam Hussein, but. . .it would be just as acceptable to model one’s life after Hussein.

Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. p. 235

[itsgerges]

[stjohncapistrano67]

I'm currently reading "The city of God, the City of Man" by St. Augustine. Anybody who bothers to read with unbiased mind St. Paul's epistles or the Catholic epistles and this book will realize that the "powers that be" have already succeeded beyond their wildest dreams in paganizing society and culture since the protestant revolt. The key component of Heresy of protestantism is worship of self. When you reject the authority of the pre Vatican II council Church, interpret the bible for your self and claim that your doing everything under the inspiration of the "Holy Spirit" and "your good enough to get to Heaven AS IS", you have a relativistic, narcissistic, and Godless society and culture. In other words, practical atheism.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Frame of Reference

The concept of a frame of reference is pivotal in various fields, from physics to linguistics, and it also has significant philosophical implications. In philosophy, a frame of reference generally refers to the perspective or context through which individuals interpret and understand the world. This concept is crucial for discussions about perception, cognition, and relativism.

Understanding Frame of Reference

A frame of reference can be seen as a set of assumptions, beliefs, and values that shape how we perceive and interpret reality. It includes:

Perceptual Frames: The sensory and cognitive processes that influence how we experience the world.

Cultural Frames: The shared beliefs, practices, and values of a particular group that shape members' perspectives.

Conceptual Frames: The underlying theoretical and methodological assumptions that guide scientific and philosophical inquiry.

Key Questions and Issues

Subjectivity and Objectivity: One of the central issues is the tension between subjective and objective frames of reference. While subjective frames are influenced by personal experiences and biases, objective frames aim to provide a neutral and universally applicable perspective. The challenge lies in reconciling these two aspects.

Relativism: The concept of a frame of reference is closely linked to relativism, the idea that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, but only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration. Cultural relativism, for example, asserts that beliefs and practices are best understood within their own cultural context.

Language and Interpretation: In linguistics and the philosophy of language, frames of reference are crucial for understanding how meaning is constructed and communicated. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, for instance, suggests that the structure of a language affects its speakers' world view or cognition.

Scientific Paradigms: In the philosophy of science, Thomas Kuhn's notion of "paradigm shifts" highlights how scientific frames of reference evolve over time. A paradigm shift occurs when the dominant scientific framework is replaced by a new one, fundamentally altering the way phenomena are understood.

Epistemology: Frames of reference are essential in epistemology, the study of knowledge. They influence what we consider to be knowledge, how we justify beliefs, and what methodologies we use to acquire knowledge. Different epistemological frameworks, such as empiricism and rationalism, offer distinct ways of understanding the world.

Ethics and Morality: Ethical frames of reference guide moral judgments and actions. Different ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics, provide various frameworks for determining what is right or wrong.

Philosophical Implications

Perspectivism: Acknowledging that our understanding is always from a particular perspective can lead to a more tolerant and open-minded approach to different viewpoints. Friedrich Nietzsche's perspectivism, for instance, argues that there are many possible perspectives from which truth can be viewed, each of which can be valid.

Critical Theory: Critical theorists examine how social, economic, and political power structures influence frames of reference. They aim to uncover and challenge the underlying assumptions that perpetuate inequality and injustice.

Hermeneutics: The study of interpretation, especially of texts, involves understanding the frames of reference of both the author and the reader. Hermeneutics explores how context, history, and preconceptions shape our understanding.

The philosophy of frame of reference explores the various contexts and perspectives that shape our interpretation of the world. It is a multifaceted concept with implications for subjectivity, relativism, language, science, epistemology, and ethics. By examining and understanding these frames, we can gain a deeper insight into the nature of knowledge, truth, and reality.