Posted on 05/08/2008 7:40:03 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
"Either relativism is a genuine theory in which a real assertion is made, or else it isn't. But any attempt to assert relativism without relying on just-plain truth [absolute] would inevitably fail, because it would generate an infinite regress. And, of course, any assertion of relativism that does not rely on just-plain truth would be-self defeating. So it looks like any apparent assertion of relativism is either self-defeating or else is not a real assertion, but something more like an empty slogan."
(Jubien, Michael. Contemporary Metaphysics. Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell, 1997)
"The only way the relativist can avoid the painful dilemma of relativism is to admit that there are at least some abolute truths... Most relativists believe that relativism is absolutely true and that everyone should be a relativist. Therein lies the self-destructive nature of relativism. The relativist stands on the pinnacle of an absolute truth and wants to relativize everything else."
(Geisler, Norman L. & William D. Watkins. Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views, 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989)
"Universal subjectivism [relativism] is refutable quite quickly, in the same way that universal skepticism is. If truth is only subjective, only true for me but not for you, then the truth too - the "truth" of subjectivism -- is not true, but only "true for me" (i.e. true for the subjectivist). So the subjectivist is not saying that subjectivism is really true and objectivism really false, or that the objectivist is mistaken at all. He is not challenging his opponent, not arguing, not debating, only "sharing his feelings." "I feel well" does not contradict or refute your statement "but I feel sick." Subjectivism is not an "ism," not a philosophy. It does not rise to the level of deserving our attention or refutation. Its claim is like "I itch," not "I know."
(Kreeft, Peter. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervaristy, 1994)
Postmodernists believe that truth does not exist objectively, that it is a 'social construct', that no universal truth exists which transcends culture(s), that progress is an oppressive Western concept, and that no superior culture exists.
"From the Postmodern view, Postmodernism itself can only be seen as another 'arbitrary social construction' like all other ideologies. As such, we have no compelling reason to accept the theory. If Postmodernism can be shown to be true, a world-view with objective truth, then Postmodernism's main thesis (rejection of objective truth) is wrong. It ends up teaching that there is some objective truth - that Postmodernism is right. In either case, Postmodernism's rejection of rational objectivity is self-defeating. It either denies the plausability of its own position, or it presumes the reliability of truth."
(McCallum, Dennis J. The Death of Truth. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996)
If truth does not exist objectively, no universal truth exists which transcends culture(s), ideologies are 'arbitary social constructs,' and societies themeslves are 'arbitrary social constructs,' that in turn produce value systems or ideologies that are 'arbitrary social constructs,' then it stands to reason - relativistically speaking - that an American society which rejects certain acts as definitely being manifestations of homophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry, greed and so on would be no more or less legitimate than an American society that perceives certain acts as definitely being manifestations of homophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry, greed and so on.
If objectivity is rejected by the relativist, be it within a moral, cultural or Postmodern context, then the relativist essentially relativizes all value systems and ideologies, thereby placing them on an equal plane, and thus making either aforementioned vision of an American society an equally 'arbitrary social construction'.
According to relativism, an American society which states that certain acts are definitely manifestations of homophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry, greed and so on would not be superior to an American society which rejects certain acts as definitely being homophobic, racist, sexist, bigotted, greedy and so on.
As a statement, what you say is true.
I understand the value of an absolute truth, but how do you know that the issues in this thread title have an absolute truth?
No definitive was given on whether it was absolutely true or not.
The body of all that I posted must be then be looked at. I took it step by step and formed a conclusion
After looking at it, how can one (or you) - relativistically speaking - say that certain acts are homophobic, sexist, racist, bigoted, greedy and so on?
Yes, I believe society decides what is morally right or wrong.
I don’t understand the superior aspect you mention.
Yes, it is all relative.
Relativists cannot base their worldview on relativism when it suits them, and then turn to asking someone whether or not an opposing worldview or something they posit is abolutely true.
They either believe in absolutes (moral, cultural) or they don’t.
If they don’t believe in moral, cultural absolutes, how then can they say that something is, or ask if something is absolutely right or wrong? They are asking a question that they do not intend to agree with when answered.
Why?
To them it is all relative to POV.
I really don’t think a societies’ being better or superior than any other, really is a factor. I think it just happens to be the way it is.
A.) So then, this American society can say that all or certain acts aren’t homophobic, sexist, racist, bigotted,, greedy, etc, and you would agree with it?
If not, then you want an American society that you want to exist.
Relativistically speaking though, the society you want would then be no better than the society (A.) that others might want to be.
I think it depends on the definition which is applied...of course, that would be relative.
I believe in striving towards what one may believe to be an absolute, but I really can’t say I believe moral absolutes exist. I don’t know any relativists, so I can only speak for myself...and I may be wrong.
So there was no involvement by anyone to make any society what they are?
If there was involvement and social construction, then those societal construction(s) produced what we have in the world.
Whether I agree or not, does not really matter, neither does what I want. Again, I don’t understand your emphasis on any one society being better than another.
If definitions are relative then what can be truthfully known about the definitions constructed?
If they are relative, then they are essentially meaningless. An infinite number of possibilities becomes possible. If definitions are relative, love then can become hate, peace becomes war, etc, etc. They all become POV based.
See why you must embrace objectivism?
I don’t really understand what you mean. I believe societies develop due to many different influences, both physical and by the involvement of individuals and groups.
Perhaps nothing can be truthfully known about some definitions. It seems they would only be meaningless to someone that did not think the same. Why is that important?
If you base your view upon relativism, you would say no.
The United States, then, relativistically speaking, becomes no better than Iran.
It would all be relative to POV.
See why you must embrace objectivism?
BTW, it is the moral, cultural and Post modernists who believe that they are attempting to build a better society in America than the one that now is.
I show that since Post modernists embrace relativism, that a society that they may want to create - one says that certain acts are homophobic, etc, isn't any better - relativistically speaking - than a society that says that those same acts aren't homophobic, etc.
I use relativism to refute relativism. I use relativism to refute and counter the world-view of Post modernists and cultural and moral relativists.
What?
You said previously that societies just happen to be the way they are!
I honestly don’t think you have a clue. You seem to be one that just drifts without any foundation for knowing what is, is.
Would you not say that no society is better than any other?
Wouldn’t that depend on what someone believes is better?
Central to Political Correctness is that homophobia, racism, sexism, bigotry and greed are inherently morally wrong. But the assertion that these things are morally wrong is an absolutist position.
The nightmare scenario for a relativist is to succeed in proving that a position is racist, and have his audience respond "OK, so we're racist. We're cool with that. So what's your point?"
If you take #26 out of context, then yes, I said that, but if you use the entire response, then you know that we were talking about one society being better than another...not that societies just happen to be what they are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.