|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
Special Feature |
 |
|
||
|
|
||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
INDEX:
Absolute and Relative -- Objective and Subjective Question from a visitor -- Dear Doctor: I recently had a rather interesting discussion with a fellow who took objection to a statement I had made concerning Absolute morality. I pointed out that the alternatives -Relativism and Subjectivism- were inherently destructive and anti-realistic in their approach towards societal government, between individuals and between groups. He criticised this, quoting Kierkegaard's claim that Absolutes cannot be transcendently known by human reasoning, and saying that I myself was an example of the Relativism and Subjectivism I deplore. I pointed out to him that if that were so, if Kierkegaard were correct, then it would be impossible for him to know it, and stated that I found more absurdity in his reasoning than I did in mine. Following this, he attempted to redefine what he meant by "relativism" and "subjectivism", and stated that, because of the individuality of each and every person, not to mention the uncertainty of day-to-day life, he believed that we essentially live and believe in Absolutes by faith alone. I naturally objected, stating that reason in and of itself must be an Absolute, and can lead us to said Absolutes in life, and that more often than not faith is a good thing but must take back seat to reason and logic in order for us to make intelligent decisions. The conversation was unfortunately aborted there, and I was not able to continue it, nor have I attempted to since. I referred the fellow to the Academy website, since much of what I have learned about logic and Realism in the sense of true philosophy, I have learned from you and Dr.Adler. Still, I would be very grateful if you could perhaps give be some advice in a nutshell on how to best approach these sorts of debates, since it left me rather irritated and feeling I had left out something. I thank you in advance for your help. Sincerely and much obliged, Epsilore. My Response: Thank you for your question. You have raised a very fundamental issue and it is necessary to resolve it before continuing any debate about "truth" and "morality." Let me briefly point out a few things to keep in mind. We must first be clear about the meaning of the terms "Relativism" and "Subjectivism" as they are used in the context of your discussion. Simply put, Relativism is a philosophical doctrine that says that "ALL truth is relative" and, following that, of course, there can be no absolutely true or false propositions. Simply put, Subjectivism is a philosophical doctrine that says that "EVERYTHING is subjective" and, following that, of course, one man's "truth" is just as valid as another's and, in the metaphysical realm, that there is no "objective" reality, everyone creates his or her own "reality." Understand, that the terms "relative" and "subjective" can be used in other contexts quite correctly. What we are dealing with here are the philosophical doctrines of "Relativism" and "Subjectivism." The first thing that can be said about these doctrines are they are self-contradictory. The statement "All truth is relative" is not a relative statement, but an "absolute" one. Therefore, it contradicts itself. The same applies to any statement by a thorough-going Subjectivist. The second thing is that no one can live according to these two doctrines. While anyone may say they are a Relativist or a Subjectivist in the sense we are using, their actions in the practical world of "objective" reality contradict their claim. Relativism and Subjectivism as philosophical doctrines live only in textbooks and classrooms. Now, let's be clear what classical realism says about reality and statements about reality. The genuine classical realist is not an Abolutist as we sometimes get accused of. What the classical realist says is: There is an objective reality independent of the mind's knowing about it and we can make statements about this reality which are "true" provided we have "objective" evidence of some sort to support those statements. "Objective evidence" is our criterion of truth. Also: There are statements which can be made regarding what human beings "ought" to do which are objectively "true." These latter statements usually come up in moral philosophy or ethics, and they must be based on objectively-grounded and formulated "facts." Basically, there are SOME statements about reality which are "absolutely" true, but there are very few which are, in fact, absolute. There are SOME statements about morality which are "absolutely" true, but there are very few which are, in fact, absolute (from a philosophical point of view). The classical realist is NOT an "absolutist" is any comprehensive sense. Our position is not the "opposite" of the Relativist or Subjectivist. It is a position "between" those doctrines and the doctrines of any so-called Absolutist (whatever that position may be and I'm not sure what it would be). I do not argue with anyone who flatly denies the following "truths," simply because it is impossible to have a rational discussion with such a person: (1) I exist and you exist; (2) A world independent of our minds exists -- material or physical reality; (3) Our reason is capable of knowing something about this objective world of reality; (4) The principles of identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. There is a whole "web" of evidence supporting these "truths," but that would take too much space here. Just remember, you cannot argue with a "universal skeptic" (which Relativists and Subjectivists actually are). It is a waste of time. Also remember the distinction between "matters of fact" and "matters of taste." You can only really argue about matters of fact. Matters of taste are "subjective" in the proper sense of that term ("I like ice cream," "I think classical music is for the birds"). Then be sure you and any opponent agree about what constitutes "evidence" and "proof." Determine this beforehand, so the rules and definitions don't change during the course of an argument. There are difference "degrees of evidence" and different "forms of proof." Strictly speaking, a genuine "proof" is the result of a deductive argument. Inductive reasoning generally gives us "probabilities" of some degree or other. Also, "spontaneous convictions," personal "empirical" evidence (which can be objective or subjective depending on the context and grounding), and "common sense," provided it is "critically" examined, can also be used as means to support facts. These are part of the "web" of evidence, although they do not exhaust it. In summary, then, agree on the basics first, before the argument. Agree on the definitions and on the parameters of the argument. If a person denies the principle of non-contradiction as an "absolute" truth, for instance, you can get nowhere with that person in an argument. In short, you cannot argue with anyone who holds an "absolute" Relativist or Subjectivist position, anymore than you can argue with a psychotic person or someone who is totally flaked out on drugs. "Intellectual insanity," as I like to call it, takes many forms and it is useless to argue with a person completely afflicted with it.
Re: The Principle of Contradiction Question from a visitor -- Dr. Dolhenty would seem to be adamant that the law of contradiction as stated by Aristotle is valid. However isn't this just to ignore modern developments in logic as regards dialectics? My Response: The Principle of Contradiction is formulated as follows: "Whatever is, cannot at the same time not be," or, "It is impossible for the same thing both to be and not to be at the same." It will be observed at a glance that this principle is but a different expression of the Principle of Identity: if the first is true, then this second is true also. Surely, if a thing "is," one cannot say that it "is not"; otherwise "is" would be identical with "is not," and "being" would be the same as "not being," and a "thing" would be "nothing." This would be absurd on the very face of it. Of course, it is self-understood that we must use the principle of the "same thing" at the "same time" under the "same circumstances." A person may "sit and stand" at different times, but a person cannot "sit and stand at the same time"; the latter would be a contradiction and therefore untrue. A person may be "a boy and a man" at different stages of life, but not at the selfsame moment of life. While the Principle of Contradiction applies with equal force to the order of reality and to the order of thought, I am here concerned with its application to the logical order of thought only, and it then reads: "The same attribute cannot at one and the same time be both affirmed and denied of the same thing." Now, you will have to explain to me where this "truth" has been changed in any way by "modern developments in logic as regards dialectics." Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.