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.
According to all that I have written - concerning political correctness - what is ‘correct?’
According to relativism, there would be no correct position concerning ‘political correctness.’
What would be correct would be based upon one’s POV. No one could decide what is or isn’t politically correct.
See how one can use relativism to refute relativism and/or counter it?
Relativists/Postmodern relativists say that no society is better than any other.
Since you said in post #24 that “it is all relative,” do you believe that no society is better than any other?
I think it depends on what society you are a memeber of. I personally like living in the US circa 2008, but I’m sure other people in other times and places may disagree. It’s probably relative to what one wants and has.
I don’t understand you seeming obsession with one society being better than another. How does it matter?
It is relativists that are obsessed with one socviety being better than another. You yourself are a relativist.
Now, you say that you like living in the US circa 2008, but - comparing the US to other countries - do you think it is all relative? You said it is all relative.
What would make you think it is “all relative”?
I wasn’t aware that I am obsessed with one society being better than another, thanks for the info. I asked, because you were the only one mentioning it.
I think it’s relative, because someone in another society, may not have the same things I do or want the same things or even think the same. Societies throughout history were/are different because all the stuff that makes up a society are different. Just for a cursory example, a society in the south pacific is going to be different than one in say Canada, because of a multitude of factors, which are obvious, environmental, religious, ethnic backgrounds, etc. That is why I think it is all relative.
I believe even religions are relative. For an example, a Christion’s beliefs are relative to his belief in the bible, correct? While a Hebrew’s beliefs are relative to the Torah, a Muslim , the Koran, etc.
What do you define as a society?
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.