Re: OT: Latest deception by Bush/Cheney

"Matthew Silverstein" <msilverz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ivndxzthy8x0.1jnvdx8l2h4hc.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

So, when you say "Slavery is wrong" and I say "Slavery is acceptable,"
we're not actually disagreeing with each other. Our statements are
perfectly consistent!

No, merely the fact that we are in a position to view slavery as wrong is an
accident of moral evolution, which is to say we are lucky to be the
beneficiaries of a tradition that makes such a judgement possible. Such a
position was by no means inevitable, however.


Absolutely, just as I can believe that my table has positive mass while
recognizing that my beliefs regarding it are shaped by evolution and
natural selection. But recognizing that my perception systems have been
shaped by external forces in this way does not change the fact that I
believe--as a matter of objective truth--that my table has mass.

Scientific descriptions, like any other, are only true insofar as they are
useful. A Newtonian view of matter is extremely useful in certain
situations (conceptualizing a table) while may be less useful in others (say
quantum mechanics). To suppose one is closer to Truth is to seal off the
notion of progress (by which I mean evolutionary development of thought
through time).

You are suggesting that we can believe something while retaining a certain
humilty about our beliefs (and maybe about our epistemic status in
general). I agree. As I said earlier, I actually think that this admirable
sort of humility is inconsistent with relativism.

I can only repeat that I believe many things while simultaneously
understanding that my belief is contingent. This all sounds question
begging to you because you presuppose some reality that exists beyond our
ability to describe it. I deny that correspondence.

The relativist wants to say something like this: "I believe X, but I don't
think that X is really true." I don't understand what this means, since to
believe something is to believe that it is true.

There is such a thing as a conditional truth statement.

Perhaps you will reply that relativists want to say something like this
instead: "I believe X, but I don't think that X is *objectively* true." I
don't understand what this means either, since I don't know what other
kind
of truth there is. How could something be true but not be objectively
true?

There is no neutral ground by which I can definitively settle disputes
beyond my ability to convince you to accept my description of the situation
at hand. There are no facts in this sence, merely descriptions, and the
best arbiter of competing descriptions is to decide which is most useful.

Perhaps you will reply that the relativists want to say something like
this: "I believe X, but I may very well be wrong, since my beliefs are a
product of my own, necessarily limited perspective." I understand exactly
what this means, and I don't think there's anything relativistic about it.

Because you seem to want to define relativism as the absence of belief of
any kind. That's a strawman.

What we call "truth" is nothing more than a better decription of a
concept (as determined by need) as compared to an older less useful
vocabulary.

That's nonsense. Here are two statements:

1. I have a tiny green elephant in my hand.

2. I do not have a tiny green elephant in my hand.

The difference between these two statements goes way beyond the fact that
one of them is more useful than the other. (After all, I may be in a
situation where the first is the more useful. Perhaps there is a madman in
my house who is going to kill me unless I can convince him that I have a
tiny green elephant in my hand. This would make the first statement more
useful; it would not make it true.)

No, it's merely the best that we can do because we are not gods, nor privy
to divine insights. A world that is not inhabited by invisible animals is
much more useful to me in that it conforms to my understanding of what the
world should be. If this seems circular, that's because it is, but that's
because there is never going to be a non-circular way of justifying ideals
(in terms that would once and for all silence objections).

Regards,
Matt



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Parkening: Success vs. Excellence
    ... > The truth of CP's words doesn't hinge on whether or not there is. ... > CP's relativism here reminds me of a wonderful article. ... Relativism insists that morality, ... > of a particular culture and what is "true" for one culture is not ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • Re: Parkening: Success vs. Excellence
    ... The truth of CP's words doesn't hinge on whether or not there is. ... CP's relativism here reminds me of a wonderful article. ... of a particular culture and what is "true" for one culture is not ... intellectual life can hardly be overstated." ...
    (rec.music.classical.guitar)
  • This is what the clash of civilisations is really about
    ... Relativism has made liberal openness appear weak, ... the truth of the church. ... Rorty are hardly bestsellers. ... Far from making liberal openness more attractive, ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Relativism: pro and con
    ... "The view that truth is relative and not absolute. ... If we are debating relativism we cannot assume that logic is true, ... Whoso hath recognized the Day Spring of Divine guidance and entered His holy court hath drawn nigh unto God and attained His Presence, a Presence which is the real Paradise, and of which the loftiest mansions of heaven are but a symbol. ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... truth" deserves to be called a kind of truth. ... deduction using those two things to produce a blatant contradiction, ... avoid pushing in that direction. ... have inconsistencies in our beliefs, I expect, and in areas ...
    (uk.religion.christian)