It strikes me as being a ‘super truth’ that both Relativism and Transcendence are both entirely compatible, and necessarily have to be.
Not unlike the ‘absolute relativism’ of Hegel for example.
What do you think?
i dont believe that hegel ever advocates for an “absolute relativism”, more like an ‘absolute infinitism’ of “transcendence” of conceptual finites… its pretty irrelevant stuff, typical misuse of concepts and words by attributing them to some sort of objective reality beyond the human mind. Phonomenology of Spirit shows this mistaken approach very clearly: to take human concepts (words) which are abstracted from daily repetitive experiential-sensory data, and elevate them to some “absolute” standard in reality itself… i.e., to take subjective human consciousness and “absolutivize” it, making it fundamental to all of creation. another not-so-hidden attempt at a reassertion of anthropocentrism, as is all german idealism.
hegels entire phenomenology is reactionary, and he is more of an appologist for kant than anything else. there is really nothing “relative” about hegel’s phenomenology at all, other than the relatively unintelligible way he tries to transcend ‘universal and particular’ without ever realizing that these are just human symbolic-language constructs bearing no resemblance to reality itself.
This ‘data’ is of course relative to your faith in Nietzsche’s theories, perhaps ‘complemented’ by Foucault’s prejudice towards the reality of language.
nope.
but even if it were relative to these, it would not be absolutely relative… ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Nope of course only means yes by extension.
The only thing that can exist is absolute reality with all its little relativities trapped withinside it.
every aspect of reality is subjectively defined and constructed in reference to other parts of that same reality. even the most fundamental level of reality, its most universal irreducible principle of action, is only defined subjectively in reference to its own expression.
abstracts are experiential qualities made in the human consciousness in order to make sense of data, they are not “out there” in reality.
That’s just your opinion.
what kind of “transcendence” are you talking about?
think about what?
you should ask more specific questions
… next…
Hi there Alpha-Omega,
Because, when the terms are a (seem) little ambiguous (to me), I seem to have a drive to agree/share a common interpretation/understanding with another person, I automatically interpretted relativism and transcendance in such a way that they are compatible (at least, after a one’s mind has become habituated to thinking in terms of relativism–as we often see, people will often first have a shallow understanding of relativism, and utilize the concept in a more absolute way).
But, I am not quite sure if I understand what you mean by “transcendance”.
Though I agree with Threetimesgreat that everything we experience is subjective, I am also confident that there is “absolute” stuff out there (which I define as not only existing in the subjective experience; they are things that, arranged in certain ways, are–amongst other things–what enable the subjective experience). Because it would be so unproductive to assume I am the only being in the Universe, and that every moment of my existence is the only thing that has ever existed (that all memories and ideas of other seperate minds is just an illusion, that there is no such thing as “time” or any other suck thing), it’s only logical that there are things (that do exist, in some way, even if I cannot accurately judge those things) that exist outside a subjective experience.
So, that’s how I am interpretting your “absolute reality”. Though your claim
Feels jarring to me (my mind experiences conflict between terms)… I will invesitage that later, after work though. I need to get ready and leave soon.
I’m going to assume “transcendance”, as you used it, refers to one being more “in tune”/“in harmony” with…or fueled by, or aware of, (or however you want to put it) by/with “absolute reality”.
For the sake of trying to agree with your idea that relativism and transcendance go together, I will assume that to transcend is to “swim with the current” of “absolute reality”, in a sense–to overcome habits of swimming against it (or into rocks or rowards bears, or whatever).
Engrained relativistic thinking enables one to understand certain ways of seeing “absolute reality” may not be correct, even if most minds (brought up by a certain culture) may think so. Then there is the idea that some interpretations of objects result in a greater or lesser likelihood of “swimming with the current” in the “immediate” and “long term” future.
So, true relativistic thinking can train a mind to avoid accepting delusions that not only lack a productive use (for that mind), but can have a negative long term effect/potential.
Makes me think of the vesica pisces (“bladder of the fish”)–ven diagram of two circles whose center points rest on the other’s edge. In Medievel Christian art you’ll often see Jesus inside the “Almond”–the exact shape that the two circles of the vesica pisces share. My interpretation is that “bladder of the fish” means that the fish, though seemingly seperate from its environment/challenge, the river, actually contains the (absolute reality that of the) river–the fish is made of water (the bladder portrays that).
All types.
By transcendence I mean going beyond all limits.
The problem I would have with TTG’s philosophy is that there is no objective reality, no persepective can offer access to it, and therefore ‘anything goes’.
My ‘absolute relativism’ was a passing phrase that is open to sensible revision.
Hegel really wasn’t much of a relativist - so i don’t see any necessarry connection between relativism (by which i assume you mean cultural and moral relativism) and the type of transcendence he talked about. He was actually kind of an absolutist about culture, and that really informed his concept of transcendence. He never much spoke about individual transcendence, except insofar as the individual represents the universal subjectivity which all other persons also participate in. His transcendence was of the collective human subject to the level of “Spirit” which is absolute subjecthood - it’s all very quasi-theological and, as 3x points out, anthropocentric - but relativism doesn’t play much of a role. Hegel had a very distinct concept of what “God” consists of, and i don’t think he would have shown any conceptual deference on behalf of it towards any competing concept.
The assertion that ‘All reality is spirit’ means that all of reality rationally orders itself and while doing so creates the oppositions we find within it.
The oppositions are relativities.
Not the sort of relativities that necessarily entail a cultural or moral relativism - The relativities you’re talking about are the result of Reason ordering itself on the way to realizing the absolute, which remains absolute, not relative. Hegel has a distinct heirarchy of levels of Truth.
I am not putting forward a Hegelian argument.
The absolute is relative.
The relative is absolute.
Okay, so where does the necessity for transcendence come into play?
Tanscendence is going beyond all perspectival limits.
you are confounding the nature of reality with human value judgments and emotion. the fact that there is nothing absolutely objective (no objective reality) does not mean “anything goes”. it means that the word “objective” only refers to something beyond the bounds/limits/influence/importance/dependence of something else.
something is objective only in reference to something else (i.e. to that from which the objectivity derives). that is why all objectivity is subjective. that which is objective is objective TO SOMETHING ELSE, from the perspective of another. this means that there is no way to understand an “absolute” objectivity or an “absolute” reality. all things enter into relations, and are therefore subjectively defined/understood. a truly absolute objectivity would enter into no relations at all, but even if this were somehow the case (it is not, because to be so would entail contradiction) then “objective” would have no meaning with regard to that thing itself: objective to what? to nothing. the entire concept of objective fails.
all objectivity is subjectively defined/understood. absolute objectivity is impossible.
“absolute relativism” is impossible as well, as it is merely an oxymoron.
and you say youre not making a hegelian argument…