appearance is often different from reality, and it s reality that counts.

Transcription

1 Relativism

2 Appearance vs. Reality Philosophy begins with the realisation that appearance is often different from reality, and it s reality that counts. Parmenides and others were maybe hyper Parmenides and others were maybe hyper realists, denying any importance to appearance. Relativism is a response to such hyperrealism?

3 Protagoras wanted to extend his defense of appearance to the point of saying that appearances are completely real, as real as it gets. He also wanted to extend appearances beyond perceptual p feelings to other kinds of seemings, such as beliefs. If I believe that the world is a certain way, then that s how the world seems to me, and so that s how the world is (to me). If you have a different belief, then that's how the world appears, and therefore how it is, to you. From this Protagoras concluded that error and false belief are absolutely impossible. pp. 2 3

4 Wood says: Here I want mainly to discuss (and to criticize) a view I have encountered among students in philosophy courses, who say things like this: What anyone believes is true for that person. What you believe is true for you, what I believe is true for me. We can call the view expressed in such statements relativism because it denies that there is any such thing as absolute truth, holds that all truth is relative to the person who believes it. Are there such people? Are there any grounds for such an attitude?

5 The world is a social construct? Objects do not exist independently of conceptual schemes. We cut up the world into objects when we introduce one or another scheme of description. (Hilary Putnam, Reason, Truth and History, 1981, p. 52). If, as I maintain, objects themselves are as much made as discovered,, as much products of our conceptual invention as of the objective factor in experience, the factor independent of our will, then of course objects intrinsically belong under certain labels because those labels are just the tools we use to construct a version of the world with such objects in the first place. (Putnam, 1981, p. 54, italics his).

6 Quite literally, men of those days lived in a different world because their instruments of intellectual interpretation were so different [C. I. Lewis, 1929, p. 253]. [theswitch to a radically newscientific view] produces disciples forming a school, the members of which are separated for the time being by a logical gap from those outside it. They think differently, speak a different language, live in a different world, [Michael Polanyi, 1958, p 151].

7 Relativism is self refuting? The problem arises as soon as Protagoras tries either to assert relativism or believe it. If Protagoras asserts relativism, then he asserts that relativism is true, and that those (such as Plato) who deny relativism say and believe something false. But relativism denies that anyone can say or believe anything false. Is this too simple? Wood assumes that it s true for me = I believe it, and I believe it = I believe it s true

8 Fundamental problems Does the concept of belief make any sense, except as an attempted representation of the truth? If we say, p is true for Socrates, aren t we committed to the statement Socrates believes p being absolutely true?

9 Scepticism and relativism people are often attracted to relativism by the feeling that others are too confident in the absolute truth of what they believe Wood says that relativism is perhaps attractive as an antidote to dogmatism (p. 24). But scepticism shows that realism doesn t entail dogmatism. Skepticism does not deny that some beliefs are Skepticism does not deny that some beliefs are (absolutely) true, it denies only that we can ever be sure which beliefs these are.

10 Absolute truth and authority If a relativist catches you audaciously suggesting g that there is such a thing as (absolute) truth, then you are bound to be asked the rhetorical question: But who is to decide what the truth is? Apparently the relativist thinks that if you hold that there is an absolute, objective truth, then you have to believe there is some authority whose word on that truth must not be questioned. Woodsays that the possibility of scepticism shows this isall Wood says that the possibility of scepticism shows this is all wrong.

11 Relativism isn t the claim that Different people can be justified din holding different blif? beliefs? Thomas Kuhn has argued in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, that during a scientific revolution (= paradigm shift ) the available evidence + logic doesn t unambiguously show the new theory to be better than the old. E.g. Priestly and Lavoisier. Kuhn argues that one s very standards of epistemic justification are part of one s paradigm, so that competing paradigms are both justified by their own lights.

12 "In the first place, the proponents of competing paradigms will often disagree about the list of problems that any candidate for paradigm must resolve.... Lavoisier s i chemical theory inhibited chemists from asking why the metals were so much alike, a question that phlogistic chemistry had both asked and answered. The transition to Lavoisier s paradigm had, like the transition to Newton s meant a loss not only of a permissible question but of an achieved solution." (Kuhn, p.148)

13 Kuhn compares paradigm shifts gestalt shifts and religious conversions, presenting them as essentially non rational rational.

14 Kuhn is an anti realist? Kuhn seems to espouse two forms of anti realism (or relativism). (A) Epistemic anti realism: whether or not a view is rationally justified ddepends d on your paradigm. It is not an objective matter. (B) Metaphysical anti realism: There is no objective truth, no world out there that is independent of theory. Reality is in fact a social construct. (Kuhn compared the progress of science to biological evolution. Science changes, but doesn t get better. It has no goal.)

15 We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth (p. 170) (Note the weasel word may here!) Does it really help to imagine i that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?

16 Kuhn claims that he can t even make sense of talk about what is really there in the world itself, as opposed to what is there according to some theory. There is, I think, no theory independent way to reconstruct phrases like really there ; e the notion o of a match between the ontology of a theory and its real counterpart in nature now seems to be illusive in principle (p. 206).

17 Is morality a cultural construct? Wood acknowledges that (p. 17): Ethics or morality itself can, in a certain sense, be seen as a social or cultural phenomenon. Ethical beliefs tend to come in systems that are conjoined with cultural practices and acquired by individuals as part of their socialization. Systems of ethical belief differ from culture to culture in significant ways that anthropologists may study with profit. Moral decency requires that we consider cultural differences concerning morality with care and sensitivity.

18 But don t think that: those truths have the substantive normative implication that whatever any culture believes is right is right for members of that culture. This absurd claim is sometimes conflated with the obvious fact that the rightness or wrongness of an act is relative to the circumstances in which it is performed.

19 Cultural relativism and cultural tolerance Does relativism foster tolerance? Does realism (among Western thinkers) lead to [shudder] Western Supremacy? If the cultural relativists are right that Western Supremacy is a belief of Western culture, then what cultural relativism tells us as members of Western culture is that it is absolutely, objectively right for us to impose our ways on others and objectively right for us to blame and interfere with the actions of people in other cultures whenever our values condemn them.

20 It looks like those views really consist in holding to certain (absolute, objective, trans-cultural) ethical principles about how the members of different cultures should act toward each other, such as that people should be open-minded and tolerant to all human beings, always treating them with dignity and respect. Perhaps the antiimperialists are embarrassed to avow such principles because they obviously come from the modern, Western Enlightenment t tradition, and avowing them will immediately expose you to the dreaded charge of ethnocentrism. (Wood refers to slavery, human sacrifice, suttee, pogrom, genital mutilation of children, etc.)

21 Relativism, humbug, hype and spin. Humbug is when I say something to you that isn t true, where I know it isn t true, I know you know it isn t true, and I know you know I know it isn t true, but I know that if you hear it enough, g, it will probably influence your behavior (typically, (yp y, in my interests). E.g. advertising, publicrelations relations, politicalspin spin, etc. Nobody believes them, or even takes them seriously. But the politicians who spend their donors money are the ones who get elected and the products that are hyped on TV are the ones that sell.

22 Is advertising and political spin transparently false? As Wood says, Nobody believes them, or even takes them seriously.

23 Humbug therefore works partly by dulling your appetite for truth, getting you used to filling your mind with what you know is less than truth, with what is self-consciously phony, a glitzy but of course unconvincing imitation of truth. Relativism might express the consciousness of someone whose whole cognitive environment, so to speak, has been taken over by humbug. Nothing anybody believes is really believed, nothing anybody asserts is meant seriously, so nobody would be so crude as to say that it was true. Nobody would care about the truth even if it came up and hit them in the face. Such a person would have come to regard being humbugged as the normal state. This person thinks of really believing something (holding it to be true, period) as abnormal, a relic of a more innocent age in which people didn t yet realize that everything is humbug.

24 Therefore, however prevalent hype and humbug may become in our cognitive environment, we can t ultimately avoid challenging them directly and unsophisticatedly by just recognizing them for what they are and declaring bluntly that they are false. Admittedly, this is not cool The only way really to oppose humbug is by being uncool,, chopping logic and just insisting squarishly on the obvious if boring fact that there is after all a distinction between telling the truth and telling lies.

25 Relativism as an intellectual defense mechanism? When I begin the study of philosophy, I may suddenly discover powerful arguments and theories I never considered before which challenge the opinions I have always taken for granted. This can be very disturbing, and make me feel iti intimidated idtdand dinsecure. Relativism Rltii comes to the rescue by protecting my opinions (making them all true for me ).