Sure, I have no problem with that. The question then would be, how to procede from that knowledge. It would be similar to the question of free will- if we decide that determinism is true, we can either treat each other like we have no free will (eliminating punishments, education, things like that which seem pointless), or we can behave as though we have free will, realizing that the metaphysics is basically academic.
With the subjective/objective situation, we can respond one of two ways to the acknowledgemnt that our knowledge is subjective. First, we can decide that it [i]doesn't really matter [/i] what we believe, so long as it makes us content, and drop all this playing at evidence, argument, and so on as so much wasted breath. Or, remembering that the reality of things is objective, we can continue to strive to be reasonable, knowing that while our belief has subjective elements, there is at least a concrete goalpost out there (the Truth) that we're trying to approach.
So, that's what I mean when I say the existence of Jesus is an objective truth- first, like you said, that his nature is objective, and second, that that objectivity ought to be kept in mind, and inform how we approach the issue of Jesus. That our knowledge will ultimately have subjective elements, that's certainly true, but that's just as true of every other field, too.
That is basically how I now interpret scythekain’s point; his argumentation seems a bit off-beat, in that I think a lot of the terms gained meaning from rolling around in his own mind and are thus difficult to decipher at first, but he isn’t really talking about anything very unreasonable. His main targets, I think, are base assumptions of entrenched ideologies that few even bother to question their knowledge of anymore.
I’d just like to know what the practical result of this is. If all scythekain wants is for these ideologies to pay academic lip-service to the concept of all knowledge being subjective, and then carry on practically as they always have, well that’s one thing, and I wouldn’t be against it- though I don’t see the point.
I had assumed scythe’s point was that this subjectivity should be taken to heart- that people should realize that their ideologies are subjective in some unique way that other sorts of beliefs (say, scientific) don’t share, and that this special subjectivity takes away the legitimacy of some ideology-based actions, such as proselytization, dogmatism, and so on. That is something I would disagree with.
I often spend too much time rolling thougths around within my own mind.
I think far too few people question their reality. Whether it be entrenched idealogy or not.
Reality is objective. Our interpretation and actions are not always objective though. If you act like UFO’s are real, and base your actions on that belief… you are living in a completely relative world, because no one else agrees with your subjective belief. If you have belief in christ, you aren’t alone in that belief, but that doesn’t make the belief more objective… that just means that you’ve come to an agreement about what christ is. BUT, as we can see, even that isn’t 100% agreed upon between the various christian denominations.
Politically, I also try not to tie myself to any idealogy… the liberals believe in defending the Islam threat, the conservatives don’t know how to fight it.
I am curious how you would deal with the issue? or maybe you don’t see an issue? or maybe that’s a topic for another thread? like I said… thoughts are thinking.
The waffles are only waffles because you call them pancakes.
Make sense?
Christ is only god, because your idealogy calls him god.
Mohammed is only a great prophet because the idealogy has built him up.
christ and mohammed are just plain old pancakes… Would you be upset if someone kept telling you that christ is a pancake and not a waffle?
The mormons and the JW’s believe that christ is a danish pastry.
it’s all semantics in the end, but it’s also the subjective way our idealogies describe the world. The idealogy your in before you were born decided to call christ a waffle. The mormons and the JW’s in the mid 1800’s decided to call christ a danish pastry.
I their personal ideology becomes entrenched if it’s beyond their capacity to question.
Well, I don’t suppose there’s much wrong with the topic creator taking his own thread in a different direction. Politically, I generally say I’m a liberal–as Ucc said in your other thread, ideological labels save time. I try pretty rigorously to avoid taking up a certain position without looking at multiple sides and thinking about it myself–the usual. As for Islam, I think it’s irresponsible and selfish to leave Iraq too early, but I think our “strategy” there should never be repeated. I think terrorism shouldn’t be fought with a war, as that just makes it worse, but rather collective international pressure. I also think the current situation has very little to do with Islam itself, and that we should be trying to bring the countries in the Middle East into the international community, rather than keep them at arms length; a large part of what we’re fighting is the idea that the US is at war with their faith.
While you may not agree with all (or much) of that, does it seem much like irrational dogmatism?
Absolutists don’t deny relativity, and they accept that many things are relative to certain standards.
Relativism is majorly flawed for the following reason. If a person claims that something is relative, it must be relative to something, meaning that some constant must exist for there to be a variance of something.
For instance, the color of light is relative to its wavelength, wavelengths are relative to their frequency, and a frequency is relative to the rate of repetition, and so on. However, the relative qualities for individual colors does not apply to colors as a whole. Absolutely, we can correctly say that all colors are wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation between 405 and 790 THz (I had to look that one up.). There is a problem between understanding things as we perceive them (red, orange, yellow…) and as they behave universally (electromagnetism, frequency…)
To second the problem with relativism, I will write it as a paradox. Relativists claim that things are relative to their perception. However, if that is written as a steadfast rule, then there is at least one absolute, and absolutism is true. If it is false, then relativism is false and absolutism is true. Either way, absolutism is true.
In metaethics, the question comes to whether moral judgments are relative or absolute, and I would again contest that the judgments made can be absolute, but that the objects of each rightness and wrongness is relative to the agent (egoism). Some like sweets. Some don’t. However, everyone does or does not like sweets because it does not satisfy them. Notice that moral abolutism allows for relative judgments, but moral relativism falls into an infinite regress and, ultimtely, skepticism.
Relativism doesn’t argue that things are all relative, it argues that our knowledge of them is relative to us. Thus, even that absolute statement is relative to us; it is only absolute from an individual’s perspective.
That’s still entirely dependent on the perspective; the individual’s liking sweets or defining whether they like sweets because they are satisfied by them depends on the individual, and the sweets can’t absolutely have any good or bad qualities that we can know absolutely.
Infinite regress? No, just a recognition that everything we know depends on our viewpoints.
Alun, the relativisism you describe above seems like it would be difficult to take beyond the personal. Like, a relativist can say “MY knowledge of things is relative to me,” or “Everything I know depends upon MY viewpoint,” and so on. But by what reason can they extend that to other people, and insist that the same is true of them as well? Perhaps the relativist is suffering from some cognitive malady, that keeps them from percieving things as they are.
Very little direct influence. Relativism is mostly, directly relevent in terms of ultimate truths in that we can’t know them. Beyond that, I’d say it just provides a basis for reserved judgement and a ward against claims to knowledge of broad, absolute principles of reality.
But direct usefulness isn’t everything; relativism is more of a foundation in thinking. What use is belief in God? --well, any specific examples would be difficult to derive, since it’s so deep within other ideas.
The thinking that relativism can be extended to others isn’t a necessary quality of relativism I think; one could basically be solipsist. It’s by faith that people ultimately claim relativism applies to others. There is considerable evidence to the point, but clearly any claim of absolute knowledge of such a union would contradict relativism. It’s much easier to challenge an absolute claim on a case by case basis than with broad philosophies anyway.
Well, I would agree with that, but relativism is [i]so very often[/i] brought up in the context of it being a global reality. Even in this thread, the focus has been on what ideologues of various stripes should be doing, how they should be thinking and feeling towards each other. In fact, I would say I see relativism used externally more than internally- almost always, when I see it brought up, it's as a lever to show that [i]somebody else[/i] is being intolerant or unreasonable.
That’s kind of what I was wondering about, how well a relativist could level evidence without contradicting themselves. Relativism denies absolute knowledge, but simple math shows that if it denies absolue knowledge of everything, it also must deny probable knowledge as well- there’s no such thing as merely adequate evidence, much less perfect. Am I right?
But then, I’m treating absolutism like skepticism now.
that doesn’t seem like a liberal position though either. I agree “terrorism” can’t be fought like a traditional war, but that also mis-states the Islamic problem we are dealing with.
In Turkey, the most “moderate” muslim country, 20+% still support suicide bombing in defense of Islam. That number goes even higher when it’s against Israel…
Lebanon, far less moderate is in the upper 60’s for mere defense of Islam.
I agree we should use more intelligence and not fight this like a traditional ground war… but idealogically speaking, we also need to remove or change their belief system. 98+% of Islam/muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of god.
I never said that relativism existed in a vacuum outside of the absolute truth.
For example, here’s two relative ideas:
God and the Sun.
If everyone stopped believing in god, he would stop existing.
If everyone stopped believing that the sun would rise… the sun would still rise.
The truth can’t be stopped, simply because we don’t believe in it, and that’s what makes it absolute.
Some things only exist upon belief. And those are the relative beliefs… Some things exist outside of our beliefs… those are the absolutes. The status of god and or christ, exists only within the mind of the believer. Sure we have some “historical” documents about him, but they are cherry picked for what the believer wants to believe. If anything is relative, it’s the christian theocracy about the bible.
For instancee, in Deuteronomy, god makes it okay to stone resilient children… Any christian today (including yourself) would say that “it was okay then, but it’s not okay now.”
So god is a relativist? If god were absolute, it would be just as good to stone children now as he commanded then.
Let’s also look at jesus (for those of you who think he’s a good guy, and the old testament law is invalid)
Jesus told us, “it’s better to be a eunuch for those who can, than to marry.”
Jesus also told us “If your eye offends you pluck it out, if your hand offends you cut it off.”
How many christians follow these commands from christ?
Because that’s the truth of beliefs… What god is like here, he is not like in Thailand, or Iraq. In Iraq, Allah commands that they march out on the street and hold signs that say “death to Israel”, and “death to america”.
Are you saying that an absolute god, would allow his word to be distorted?
If anything it proves that god is created from within by the charismatic leaders who start religion, so any hatred, or condemnations get built into that god. For instance, mohamed for all intents and purposes was a mad conqueror… but because he created a god to back him, he becomes a holy warrior.
NOW, if we drop the relativism… we can find the absolute truth. Like I stated above. If we suddenly stop believing in everything, the truth will make itself self apparent.
If someone says “Islam is evil”, you could assume that they’re taking all of the philosophical baggage of evil being their own idea etc., or you could assume they’re speaking in absolute metaphysical terms. If they’re a political opponent, which way are you going to be inclined to do it?
Math/Logic itself only works given our own perspective; it defines how people think. Given that we have no reason not to think we can think, it might as well be treated as absolute. Likewise, there is nothing to gain from acting like we can’t ever tell what is going to result from our actions–i.e. that there aren’t universal constants. So, science is as valid as we can get about the outside world; its evidence is valid as far as it goes because we simply have to assume our perspective is, because there are no alternatives. It isn’t logically rigorous, it’s just the only theory we have, so our evidence isn’t ultimately undermined by relativism in determining action. Right?
To be honest, I don’t care about whether I adhere to my label in every instance. I am curious though, as to what position would be ‘liberal’ by your definition on this topic, and why.
To be honest, I don’t care about whether I adhere to my label in every instance. I am curious though, as to what position would be ‘liberal’ by your definition on this topic, and why.
[/quote]
“cut and run”.
That’s what the democratic party wants, and that’s why they ousted Lieberman.
Well, the problem there, is that under Relativism, the statement "Islam is Evil" isn't really a statement about Islam, it's a statement about the speaker, as such it's very uninteresting in the context in which it's likely to be used. A political opponent of mine is probably a liberal, so if they were to say "Islam is Evil", I'd take it for granted that they were making an uninteresting statement.
Well, that's pretty much how I treat it. Relativism is just fine as long as people grant that we have to carry on as though it's not true- that's the sort of relativism I accept. However, when it's used to reccomend or decree how anyone else ought to behave- for example, when it's said that Islamists shouldn't behead infidels because they cannot know their beliefs are absolutely true, then relativism should be fairly criticized. It fails such criticism- there's no rational way a relativist can promote his foundation to other people, and indeed, it just leads to general skepticism, which is more of a paralytic than a worldview.
It sounds like what you're saying is that relativism doesn't undermine evidence, because whenever we need to get any actual work done, the first thing we do is ignore relativism! I would agree. If relativism is taken seriously, and actually used as a position from which to reccomend action, then it does undermine the ideas of both math and evidence- or is undermined by them, I suppose. Either way, they aren't compatible. That we need to ignore relativism in order to function is a perfectly fine argument against relativism in the first place, for a fan of Thomas Reid like me.
I think it’d be more accurate to say relativism simply doesn’t make a difference in a lot cases, rather than to say it’s outright ignored; you’re acting as if it’s true, because its being true doesn’t change the situation. I had meant to say that relativists you hear using it in political debates are likely doing so almost exclusively for political leverage, rather than out of ideological rigor (clearly a generalization, but the point really stands for any ideology that you’ll mostly be hearing what it isn’t due to politics). I could say “Islam is evil” and be saying something, that is, more than just talking about my beliefs, because those beliefs are based on evidence which in turn can translate into other people’s beliefs.
I guess I still don’t see what context it has, then. In practicality, it doesn’t make a difference, in politics, it’s used inappropriately, and in analysis, it can’t be promoted or supported. I accept as a general fact that we can’t know anything for certain that comes to us through our faculties such as perception, memory, and so on. But I accept that as a fact because I know what a fact is. It’s the absolutist in me that allows me to percieve where things aren’t absolute- and when they are.
But as soon as you enter into that direction- try to demostrate that Islam is evil based on evidence, and expect others to be persuaded by that evidence, you're abandoning relativism and taking a posture of absolutism- "This is how it is, and I ought to be able to convince you of such if we're both reasonable people". At least, that's how I've seen the difference between the two. If not for a belief in absolute, external truth, and my apprehension of it, why try to convince people of my beliefs? Vanity?
Well sure you believe in absolutes. That’s different than knowing though. Again, relativism is mostly just important when the application or definition of absolute beliefs comes into question, and otherwise only really provides a basis for being more reserved in action with the recognition that all empirical things can be skewed by perspective. The thing is, relativism applies in large quantities given the number of irrationally applied absolute ideas; I don’t think it will always need so much air time.
It’s a bit different if you’re talking about the way your own mind works; your only basis is self-awareness, and it’s basically the perspective analyzing itself. Your knowledge of yourself is relative to yourself; so what? It’s pure logic in that it’s only dealing with itself, so you can either know it absolutely or not exist at all. Same goes for your own definitions of symbols, like the word “fact”; either it means that to you or you aren’t real so it doesn’t matter to you.
But that’s exactly my point. A moderate may find a certain action deplorable (suicide bombing for example) and then label the underlying idiology “extreme”. But in order to combat such “extreme idiology” the moderate will resort to violence to impose his will. At that point the recipient of the violence will find the actions of the “moderate” deplorable and may label the underlying ideology “extreme” and thus justify more violence. And round and round we go.
I guess that my point is that if you define an “extremist ideology” as one that leads to violence to impose it’s will, but then choose to combat such an ideology using violence to impose your will, then you have no right to use the labels “extremist” or “moderate”. Both actions are so similar that the labels are arbitrary. If you have some other underlying reason to believe that a certain ideology is “extremist”, then that might work. But to define extremism based on action will either leave you a pacifist or a hypocrite.
Perhaps they don’t want “freedom” because they look at the US and see pornography, divorce, exploitation, crime, injustice and fear. And they would rather have a more “moderate” controlled society under Islamic law?
You have not yet provided a framework to justify calling Imams “mad”. If violence and “imposing your will on others” is the framework you are using then the leaders of the US are as “mad” as any Imam. Aren’t they fighting a war designed to impose democracy on others?
But you have yet to state clearly and specifically what is inherently wrong with Islamic ideology. I don’t want a political discussion. I just want to know your justification for calling one ideology “mad” and another “moderate”.
Your ideas of control are too simple. The reason you don’t like such control is because you have been indoctrinated to glorify “freedom” and see control as inherently evil. As you correctly point out, those in Islamic countries have been indoctrinated to glorify a form of control and see “freedom” as evil. In summary, both of you have an underlying extremist ideology that will inevitably lead to violence. You are not a moderate. You want to impose your freedom on those who value control, and you will do it whatever the cost. In a different setting you’d be strapping a bomb on right about now.
