Professor Destroys Relativism in 4 Minutes!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- An argument for objective truth found in an objective reality.
Without a common reality there can be no common truth and no true communion between people.
Timothy Fortin Ph.D. | Seton Hall University
www.shu.edu/pr...
Have you ever stoped and realized that the statement, “Truth is relative” is an absolute statement?
Yes. So what?
@joashscottofficial so? 😂
@joashscottofficial exactly
@joashscottofficial Relativism is more of an explanation than an argument. The explanation can support the argument that truth is relative. No one will ever agree on what an objective truth is because there is no perspective-less perspective. I don't put logic on a pedestal. It has limits and when I encounter it's limits I ignore it. So saying a statement is self-refuting does more for you than it does for me. My day is fine. Hope yours is well too.
@joashscottofficial Right.
We clearly don't agree. I don't value objectivism, rationalism, logocentrism, nor foundationalism as a criterion of truth that leads us to some absolute truth.
It doesn't appear to me that anyone has any justification for their criterion of truth other than preference.
Saying Logic doesn't have limits is awfully similar to a Christian saying God doesn't have limits. To say such a thing is, to me, quite based on faith.
Anything I say is just my account. I am not interested in dogmatizing my beliefs. Things pertaining to philosophical and scientific investigations on non-evident things such as epistemology, metaphysics, ontology, and criterions of truth are inapprehensible to me. So I withhold assent. However, I will respond to a dogmatist when it appears that I see one.
"The laws of logic do exist independent of our awareness of the reality of all the truths they lead us to."
This is ridiculous from my perspective.
A few points of contention:
1. That you don't like the potential consequences of something is not a good argument for that something's incorrectness as a position.
2. Reality doesn't measure or determine anything. Humans measure and humans determine things. Thus, even if we are living in the same reality - relativists tend not to dispute that we do - we may measure or determine (or interpret) that reality differently. And in cases where we do, what relativists say is that we can't settle those disputes by appealing to the common reality, precisely because that would be circular: we already disagree on our interpretations.
3. If relativism is right, how can we resolve disagreements? Intersubjectively. That wasn't so hard.
4. If relativism is right, it doesn't follow that we will all disagree on everything. It just means that when we do, there may be no singularly correct criteria or standard we can point to to non-question-beggingly resolve those disagreements.
5. It may be that there are singularly and objectively correct ways of interpreting the world. But it just so happens that there are many points where we differ widely on what those ways are. And when that happens, it seems that all of us believe that our ways are the objective ones. The better interpretation might be that while there is a single common reality, we all interpret it differently and are wont to see our interpretations - because they are ours - as the objectively correct ones. Naive realism.
This whole video and his whole opinion in it is relative 😂
Thank you for posting this video. So simple and yet so profound.
and hypocritical
Society crumbles w out communication.
It's my opinion, but I disagree.
1. Relativism doesn't (or shouldn't) mean isolating yourself. It should make you realize how to better understand other people. The best way to debunk someone's reality is to find common ground, that's what I think. Instead of trying to force an "objective" truth on a person and failing because they deny it, you should just find common ground.
2. The fact that relativism may cause communication & relationship problems doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's true that basically all moral principles and even logical axioms can be simply denied. *There's nothing you can do against an interlocutor who doesn't use logic and doesn't share any common ground with you.*
Read Advaita Vedanta, read it and understand that this world is an illusion.
His truth hurts
In the end one submits to man or reality.
The music is distracting. I don't get why Americans are so prone to putting "inspirational" music over everything. It just cheapens the message.
It is a shit
The “reality” is constantly changing, or at least our understanding of it is. We communicate in ways BEYOND language. It doesn’t matter if words fail us. Words aren’t all we have. Truth is relative to each of us and we DO NOT need to make others yield to our version of “truth” we can absolutely accept that everyone has a different reality based on their own lived experiences. For me that helps generate compassion and wonder and respect for others and their opinions. I don’t need everyone to agree with me or my “truth(s)”
The issue with this: We are an organism that is operating on a very low level of intimacy and understanding of purpose collectively. The issue with us creating our own desired truths is we lose the desire to know the reality that ties us all together in its unadulterated state. Two people can read a book and have two different view points on the content but at the end of the day the intended resolution of said book is fixed. There is no way of different “truths” coexisting outside of the fixed truth without one eventually consuming the other or integrating the other for compromise. The reality is that in the near future the world will begin to combine all these “truths” into one to try and establish peace, but this new truth in oneness will now have to go against the absolute truth, the one we have neglected to truly know or come to terms with and the combined truths will lose. Reality is not relative. It is absolute. We have different cubicles but we are working at the same job and what goes on in our cubicles may be relative, but it cannot consume the overall activity and existence of the company. People who confidently sit under the umbrella of absolute truth are a lot wiser than those who sit in the rain of relativity. The enemy of the absolute truth is the cause for this worldly confusion, but we will all submit to the absolute truth (all that are alive and all that are dead) when the time is up and the truth speaks on its own behalf. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. ❤️
@@Linaug23 based
Profoundly stupid argument, this person never even attempted to understand the argument relativists make, which is not a good example for either position, but for intellectual honesty and the principle of charity.
“Communication becomes impossible” as if misunderstandings of terms based upon life experience doesn’t already exist
@jumbo9386 Can you really say that when - contemporary examples of the Supreme Court ruling show that even people that dedicate their lives to the law and to ethics wind up on different sides of an issue. The Justices can "acknowledge correctly a .... presence" but the readings, interpretations and rulings are offered with dissention
Read Advaita Vedanta, read it and understand that this world is an illusion.
LOL the history of religion is imposing its reality( or death) on different peoples. Are you completely blind to that? You are doing it right now, "there is only one way to understand reality and I just happen to be a professor of that reality."
For several years now I have been living with the clear sense that no one understands what I am talking about. They hear the words however the deeper sub text of my communication with them is lost. This video looks into that window of human experience. There is a way out, it is to invest in understanding of the other that they have a different world view and try to discern that via some kind of reflective communication. Without this as the speaker suggests there is no intimacy. If intimacy is to be found it would be in the desire and conscious effort to move beyond this seperation.
look at all the drones buzzing in the comment section
they are addicted to the isolation
Of course but this desire and conscious effort has nothing to do with belief in objective reality, as the speaker suggests.
Soft nihilistic solipsism as I like to call it. (Nothing can be known or communicated or nothing exists but the self) who then can you hurt but yourself? I fear this philosophy is at the heart of this wave of post modernism taking power in the west. Your idea to fix it is my own. We are taking steps to, but it is not the majority. It will take time.
“ your words will not be understood as you speak them “
Peter, Paul and Mary
1960’s song
Read Advaita Vedanta, read it and understand that this world is an illusion.
This Professor lives in denial. What he described when he said the following about relativism, "either I make you yield to my truth or you make me yield to your truth", is exactly what occurs in the world. As an example, Westerners like him try to impose their universalist morals on many different societies, and this has mostly been done by force, which you celebrate, which is why you celebrate imposing your morals on your vanquished enemies, whom you had to force to yield to your morals and to your perception of truth, god or some arbiter didn't do that for you. In the same sense with the current end of the American hegemony, there are many different ethical systems and the USA like Britain before it can't just go around bombing or killing these people to enforce their values, and due to the inability to coerce through violence you can't stop this multipolar divergence in which most countries in the world don't agree with your Western system of values or your Western perception of reality.
You do the same with the subject of history, you even send people to prison (sometimes they get killed) for having different interpretations of history in the Western world, no god or outside arbiter is doing that for you. This professor works for a state-funded institution, and exists in a state that engages in forcing its relative views on other nations in the world through violence, that ability to commit violence has drastically reduced (and will continue to do so) and as such you're going to have completely different ethical systems in different parts of the world which you can't force to adopt your views anymore.
In other words, his country pretends that a universal reality (whether that extends to ethics, history, values, or preferred outcomes) exists, but if that was the case why do so many of these people have different interpretations of reality (to the USA Israel is justified in what they do to Palestinians, in South Africa it isn't, in the USA they justified what they did in Iraq, in the rest of the world it was unjustified).
That makes absolutely no sense at all. You really mix everything up, that is not related at all and is completely ridiculous. Geopolitics, ethics and values has absolutely nothing to do with universal morals. The people in Afghanistan know that rape is bad like the people in German know it. No one had to bomb them to bring them “western values”. Especially not morals. Also because values are not morals. Of course in Afghanistan, for example, rape is more rooted in the society and some kind of “accepted” through the tradition of the bachar bazi or the gang rapes of unprotected women and the marriage of 9 year old girls with grown men (including their wedding night). But these things are trained and pushed on the people in Afghanistan. They are not born like this and there are many Afghans that condemn this things. But it is in fact much, much more common than in our society. It is not in their DNA. If all the Afghans would grow up in the Netherlands without religion or the Christian faith, the would not marry little girls and rape them in the wedding night. They would not rape little boys in a gang rape like they do it with the bachar bazz. Of course some of them would still do bad things, like some people even in the western societies or Asian societies etc. do, but not in these high numbers like they do it in their own society.
Children are the best example. Social experiments with children showed over and over again, that even children under the age of two are empathetic. They help others without getting a reward. They try to comfort someone that is crying, they share their food if the other kid gets nothing etc.
There is a lot of proof that these things are inherent. Of course empathy can also be trained and unlearned. Why humans show this behavior and why they are empathetic is another question. There are mirror neurons for example. Could be a biological explanation. And empathy is not morals. But I think empathy is the root of morals. So mirror neurons could be the reason why humans all over the world (as long as they are not manipulated through their surroundings) are inherently good and empathetic. Psychopaths could support this biological cause by being an exclusion.
Moral relativism is absolutely stupid, if you know the biology and the psychology of humans, it is obvious that our morals, like not hurting or killing others and to love and care for each other is inherent since birth. The root could be the mirror neurons. If you believe in the creation (which a lot of well known scientists all over the world do) you can say, that empathy and morals are god given.
“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
Romans 3:4 KJV
If that is true, the author of that sentence is a liar.
@@jordannewberry9561 But this is where relative interpretation makes its move. It doesn’t HAVE to mean men are liars at all times and all contexts, it only means in the ultimate truth God’s truth and thoughts will always be superior to man’s mind. Biblical interpretation varies by person to person and was never meant to be one-dimensional.
@@Boxxxxxxxxx I don't care what people interpret the word liar to mean. What I said is provable by categorical syllogism no matter how people interpret the word.
@@Boxxxxxxxxxso… mans truth becomes relative again
Read Advaita Vedanta, read it and understand that this world is an illusion.
What are you talking about? He didn't prove sh*t. He didnt destroyed relativism neither. He just concluded relativism is a pessimistic way of look at life and that he PREFERS the other point of view. But he didnt destroy anything at all. In any case he just said is painful to live as a relativist but thats all. Something being painful is not the same as being false.
I wonder if this trend towards relativism isn’t contributing to the current mental health epidemic. When there’s no collective “truth” to cling to, it places tons of pressure on the individual to find a truth that works for them. I know I’ve felt like I have to “play God” to try and make sense of life, and that gets exhausting.
I don't think its contributing to it, as some minor ingredient in the mess, it is the the central and direct cause of it. Until people understand this underlaying shift, there is very little conceptual grasp of much of current social-political climate, and the mass psychoses that is brewing in it.
People are much more comfortable when they are told what is true and what to believe, vs living in a universe where that is not answered for them.
I was having a conversation with someone who embraces the notion that "we create our own reality.". Then he made an absolute.kind of statement about something and I asked if he had any evidence. He said evidence was irrelevant; only his intuition mattered. There is no discussion possible with such a person.
The59thHooh …. 💯 percent!!!
God is a synonym for truth
So who is right? You? Oh, your God tells you what is right. So then we don't need to ask Him. We just ask you. You're always right. What's that? You aren't? Well, we better discuss things and see who has the best argument. You will, because God tells you?
And round and round we go. Relatively speaking.
So where's the argument against relativism?
That whatevar we call a "tiger" it will still eat you regardless what we call it.
@@kennethnystrom593 Tigers are physically real. When you're talking about things that have no physical realness, what it does and doesn't do is basically irrelevant. There's no evidence that it matters what unicorns do.
@@someonenotnoone So you deny reality. Good luck with that nonsense.
When you rely on unicorns for your argument, you need a better argument.
@@kennethnystrom593 who denies this?
Solipisism, yep...
Accept that...
Just because it's uncomfortable, doesn't mean it is false...
We are already in a battle ground of subjective expirence...
That's why there's so many debates...
Subjective experience of something is not reality. We can all have our own experience of something - the tale of the blind men and the elephants - but in the end it's still an elephant.
Read Advaita Vedanta, read it and understand that this world is an illusion.
This explains so much history and current events it is mind-blowing.
This seems to be how our current authoritarianism is taking hold, through relativism. Whoever has the power defines the truth
Brain bursting and ball plopping
@@J.B.1982 ... and what was it before??
@@BillyBuntin
More absolutism. Either can be used as a tool for it but I see too much relativism causing a society to lose itself, lose its culture, lose what makes it work.
@J.B.1982 in the past you had individuals using their power to assert their particular, subjective POV as absolute. Look at it this way and see what reality truly is.
Many of these cultures and social norms that you're seeing come loose were never grounded in truth, never informed by the needs and perspective of the collective.
Things change, cultures shift. That is the nature of reality. They should change, and have always been changing. Don't develop a mentality of attachment. Too much Cable News, perhaps. Don't blame our natural shifting world on "relativism", when almost all of the horrors of history - and the present - have arisen from power falsely asserting itself as absolute truth (government, religion, tribalism)
I find this a dark and deeply pessimistic, even dystopian view of human interaction. I don't for a moment accept that without moral objectivism humanity will splinter, separate and wither. We are, as a species, deeply social, deeply dependent on each other, and consequently we face this challenge of social cooperation head on. We accept certain claims as inherent good for human progress. Claims for example that murder is wrong, that slavery is wrong, that rape and sexual violence against others is wrong. There are many other such claims humanity agrees upon. They are agreed claims, resounding down throughout history, throughout culture. We don't isolate from each over these claims but build on a shared, agree value. Our legal systems, internationally, reflect for the most part, our desire to communicate and exist as a species given some of the disagreements we have. There is no you having to submit to my views, or I to your views, when we agree on shared acceptance of claim of significant importance to humanity. We agree, relatively, communativly, what claims best serve humanity, best serve desire for progress and happiness.
To suggest that without moral objectivism humanity will splinter and divide is wrong. There is no moral objectivism written in the cosmos. It is a product of human effort to progress ourselves and thus far has succeeded.
You’re thinking is a bit limited there. Should there exist any objective truths, we would likely not be able to conceive such truths. Allow me to explain.
In my opinion, how can one truly trust the source from which one attains their knowledge, and is that source in any way, able to be completely unbiased and opinion-less in its provision of the knowledge?
My answer, which is of course my opinion, is that it is impossible for knowledge to be acquired from an unbiased, or opinion-less source, as sources (being cognisant beings - humans) cannot cognize on topics of such deep intellectual understanding until they reach an age that that cognizant being has first formed, at least some form of bias or opinion through the influence of another cognizant being or beings in its formative years.
I further add that, in my opinion, adding subjectivity may well be the only way our brain or mind can make sense of anything. Being faced with an objective truth would probably be like being put in a class taught in a different language and being told to understand it. Without subjectivity, we would probably be unable to perceive what we learn or put it in perspective. We are incapable of objective thinking. However, I am saying that through a subjective lens.
so many bad arguments within the first minute only...
We all have our truths, the arguments are valid in his perspective, thats whats matter
When it comes to your favourite ice cream flavour, yes. In bigger things, no.
We are already there.
We been there
We decide on meaning by consensus and imitation. Think about how new slang terms are developed.
If we are being honest, the professor didn't really *debunk* the subjectivity/ relativity of reality as much as claim it's *better* if it wasn't subjective. And I think we would all agree with that.
However, the case is that all those things that he claims will happen (people disagreeing and clashing with each other because of misunderstandings as a result of miscommunication) *if* reality was subjective, is happening right now everywhere in the world. So in a way, his theory itself proves that reality is subjective to the observer.
Incorrect sir. The very fact that we have a language at all to describe certain things means there is something there to describe.
What you are seeing is the result of people acting AS IF relativism is real - AS IF up can be down, left can be right. They are disagreeing on definitions of words AS IF they can be the sole determiner of that - it's absolutely what's happening on social media on a grand scale. Including and perhaps especially the "you have to submit to me" part. We did not used to argue like this - we used to argue - debate - to find the truth.
The concept of solipsism was deliberately pushed on our population. You are watching the effects of that.
@@gracelewis6071 Wrong
@@acommonman7950 Oh do please expand on your honorable thesis 😂
@@gracelewis6071 Something tells me you're not actually looking for an answer. Besides you don't seem mature enough to understand my argument. Remind me again in a few years and hopefully by then you would have answered it yourself. Cheers.
@@acommonman7950 what a cowardly way to say that you've nothing to contribute.
The objective truth stands above all.
He describes postmodernism perfectly, i.e. there is no truth, only narratives vying for power.
I suppose that makes sense.
I'm not likely to argue that reality itself in large part isn't objective. However, that deriving of facts & truth can be met with a monkey's wrench through subjective spectacles in perceiving that reality. The adoption of facts & truth does not necessarily require considerable substantiation from reality as some may be credulous. Belief in what's considered true can be distorted, as something supposedly false can corrupt the understanding of other aspects of reality if that belief is expansive enough (i.e. religion). This is where asserting reality can easily boil down to vying for power, as there's not an intermediate party that can attest to the validity of facts & truth to an absolute degree of certainty that either would necessarily be convinced by in spite of whatever assertions either may entail. That's not to say that persuasion towards a side's narrative isn't possible, but can be excessively difficult when either is adamant they are on the side of truth while the other is not with some certainty, especially when substantiated by others they deem more credible; there would still be a degree of faith either way. That's why I believe interpretations of objective reality can be subjective to an extent, as not all beliefs necessarily correspond to reality reliably; some more so a reality derivative forging fantasy.
what was it before?
Which is a child of christianity. "We, and ONLY WE, have the one true special revelation and truth. And anyone who defies us shall be killed." Christianity is the origin of woke.
@@BillyBuntinthat knowledge only exists orally
Meaning what we know is from the written word and anthropology. "Pre civilization" knowledge thus would held be held through oral tradition by any current living ancestors.
Making the possibility highly unlikely we will ever know
"There is no truth" is a euphemism for "my beliefs aren't taken on faith like I want them to be." If only we had no science, and arguments and definitions were the best we could do, then maybe you'd get the blind faith you seek.
What does the awful background 'muzak ' add to this thought-provoking video?
For me, the good professor has perfectly described the reality of the world we live in. He explains tribalism, conflict, and the misunderstandings that cause all the pain and suffering we see in the world. He has not destroyed relativism, he has simply pointed out that this way of seeing things dominates the politics, religions, and ideologies that everyone I know adheres to.
@@sneakytown will do
What exactly is tribalism? The pain caused is because we do not share the same reality or that someone intentionally goes against reality. Does you inclusion of everyone include atheism and leftism? Does your everyone include you as the observer?
The professor is conflating words having meaning to objective morality existing. We all do create our own realities. The reason we can communicate is that culture and language gives us enough common ground to communicate.
There's never been two human beings with identical realities and there never will be. There's never been two Christians with identical realities and there never will be. That's why humanity has never been able to definitively define objective morality.
@@kennethgee2004 In this context it is identifying with seeing things differently.
@@kennethgee2004 Everyone means everyone.
excellent
Thanks, im in search to destroy relative truth and this is helping :)
Promote real truth and relativism will eventually destroy itself.
If you haven't seen already I recommend Ravi Zacharias and also John Lennox RUclips videos.
@@chrisdeep8417 The most part of people who prefer to belive in this "unique truth" are commonly trying to find arguments to defend a ideological view, including religious ones.
It's frustrating when you know that this "truth" you're base your entire life might be just a illusion, and that's why humans are always trying to make immutable things to confort them.
relative truth doesn't exist
@@Xenibalt y'all dont understand shit. objectivity exists in societal terms. its a social construct. made with the goal of allowing us to live in harmony together in society. In the most pure forms, objectivity doesnt exist. For example: there's no proof we see colors equally. In fact, colorblind people are deemed as 'sick' because they see differently. The only proof that we have that the rest of us non-colorblind folks see things equally is that we THINK and we ASSUME we see colors equally.
@@Xenibalt the entire concept of truth and reality is interpretated by men with fleshy imperfect bodies. Everyone's perception of truth is different because everyone is an individual.
The title is clickbait. The prof said "The consequence of relativism..." NOT "The argument against relativism..." .. smh
You've lost me here. Even if there is such a thing as "objective truth," what are you proposing to be the final arbiter for deciding what that objective truth is? Wouldn't the ultimately, objective criteria for divining the truth itself have to be a standard upon which all claimants to absolute truth agree? As you said, short of might making right and physical coercion being the arbiter of truth, is there a decider in this world - available to us here and now - that can settle this issue? As far as I know, no such standard exists, and until it does, any claim that objective truth exists is utterly irrelevant.
The Quran is the decider, available to us here and now. It is sent down by the Almighty Allah (God). It has no contradictions, it gives us moral anchor, it states things that no 7th century man could ever even guess, let alone tell. It challenges you to decode it and if you do decode it then it wouldn’t be from whom it claims to be sent down by. It also gives you tons of falsification tests which would help you to start your journey of decoding the Quran. Read it if you haven’t and you’ll benefit a thing from me. If you don’t see it beneficial then at least you’ve read it and nobody would tell you otherwise about it. Welcome.
Would you say that us as people getting it right determines whether this objective truth exists or not?
It’s Jesus Christ my friend. The creator of the universe
whether you agree with someone else about what is objective reality or not, its effects are non-negotiable and operate independent of your beliefs and biases. Putting it in the great mike tyson's logic, everyone has [ an imprecise version of reality] until they get punched in the mouth [ by a version of reality, that some call, the objective truth].
@@Aryankingz love the way you put it lol
Subjective truth is an oxymoron
Good professor❤
Reality is the same for everyone, I think. But could mean different for different sets of people.
This man has a big brain .. I yield to God as I know His reality will be the greatest and that is my truth.
Good day to you sir !
“The Truth”
His message is anti-theistic but okay
He is speaking good sense here 👍🏽
If truth is relative then the statement "truth is relative" could be untrue therefore truth is not relative. And if truth is relative then the statement "truth is relative" could also be considered as absolute truth since that's what she's arguing that is true. There is absolute truth and relative opinions.
Not if you just say truth is relative in your opinion
An opinion is a qualified perception of the point of view.
A fact is formed by direct experience of the matter.
An educated guess is a hypothesis.
Most people speak from opinion and are guessing not knowing for a fact.
It is tiring.
I disagree, its not always a battle. This is such an extreme view on this where it doesnt have to be.
The case is that in our world people will have extreme views. We cant pick and chose which moral or values are viewed.
you sound like a delusional satanist
A view is an opinion. This man right here is talking about FACTS. Not opinion
He's focusing on "2 persons have their own reality, so they both wanna stay far from the other and both want to put their reality over the other". It did happen, that's when 2 cultures begin a war and no agreement is avaliable. But in this globalized world and thanks to internet, we grow up more connected than ever and that includes our realities, althrough we have differences and our own opinions on things, no war is needed and we can live in agreements such as law.
@@SkyLess Noooo. That doesn't work. Its impossible. How cant you see that? Listen to his words carefully and honestly
This is all well and good but I should like to point out that the problem feeling accomplishment by destroying relativism is only true relative to someone who already believes that truth is not relative. Not only do we have to accept that the knowledge that truth is not relative is itself relative to any given individual but any given person who believes that truth is not relative only knows that true is not relative in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else. Paradoxically, evidence only matters to someone who already accepts that evidence matters.
One thing I find utterly ridiculous about some philosophical arguments is the idea that bad repercussions = not true. The professor in this video almost falls into this trap. One of the easiest examples of this trap is the free will argument. When discussing free will someone is eventually going to say something along the lines of, "Well if none of us have the free will to choose what we do then where does that leave blame and praise?" These same people then tend to argue about free will from the standpoint of that it HAS to exist for things to remain the way they are which they see as overall being morally good, but what people want has no bearing on what is and is not true. In this professors argument of relativism he brings up the point of forcing your truth on someone else and vice versa, but is this not what we already do? Look at people who are colorblind. We see red, they see red, however we are both seeing different things. There is no correct red, only different reds. However, both sides agree that what they see is red with the majority side calling the other side colorBLIND. I also think that relativism is quite broad and certain forms of relativism have quite a lot of merit to them such as moral relativism which could be a problem if they are all wrapped into the same argument about relativism as a whole which this video is titled as. Now to be fair of course I agree that it is better for the world as it is that things aren't subjective as he describes.
This is exactly what I have been always thinking. Why don’t they distinguish between “is” and “should”? People say that we “have” human rights but it’s actually that we “should” have human rights
but the point is does the inability of a colour-blind person to perceive colour change the physical property of the object to scatter light of certain wavelength giving it its characteristic colour? It obviously does not, right?
Jesus Christ is the Lord
I’m not so sure. While I believe there is a degree of congruence among beings, and certainly with a language group, I also think that things are what they are for you.
How did he destroy it? Seemed to me like he affirmed it? Human history religious wars, colonization assimilation, imperialism, affirms that in the event of two, one will ultimately always yield to another
That's assuming that either one was even definitive at all...
History is not always written by the victors. That kind of mindset opens the door to Critical Race Theory which purports that History is always about the Haves and the Have Nots, which lacks the nuance of Reality...
The point is, on contrary, the fact that many virtues are universal shows the fact that, regardless of culture, religion, history, etc., Definitive Moral Standards exist.
Exactly! This professors head is so deep into universalism, that when he describes relativism, he is actually describing universalism. Universalism is what requires wars and subjugation to become universal. Relativism is fine with coexistence and does not require subjugation.
Completely wrong analysis.
Father Matthew, in my opinion, conflates moral truth with physical truth. He uses language sloppily, in my opinion. For instance, I can talk about Unicorns with another person all day long. We can agree completely on what a Unicorn is and forward our discussions. This does not mean the unicorn exists. When he says, at the beginning that we are not talking about the same truth, does not mean that we cannot talk about scientific truths accurately. It just may mean that we cannot talk about ethical truths accuratly.
In the second part of his discussion of an outside arbiter - I can agree that is uncomfortable - but that discomfort does not mean that the arbiter necessarily exists.
I don't think we need to necessarily be in conflict with another person because we disagree. It seems tolerence is the cure to this conflict. I think he has submitted to a Hobbsean type universe when he claims that we cannot exist outside this conflict. I also disagree that the paradox is within relativity - I wonder if it exists within Christianity and other universalist religions that claim that their concept of the universal arbiter is the correct one and all others should bend to their will while simultaneously preaching toleration.
With this said, Please accept no umbrage with this. I absolutely love his attempt to understand it and pretend to have no answers myself. I think Padre is a good man trying to do good things - and that is something I love.
I also think we could be friends and love a good lunch now and again.
There is a trick in this monologue that I wish people could clearly understand. You could call it, relentlessly pursuing a line of thought to its extreme.
You heard him say that if truth is relative “communication would be impossible,” and everyone would be in conflict and intimacy would be impossible. If this sounds plausible to you, consider this opposite extreme: If truth is absolute, everyone automatically understands everyone else without need for communication, and you must always agree with the majority on everything or else you will be a villain and an outlaw. Does that sound reasonable? Of course, this doesn’t prove truth is relative, it only shows that his argument is not a good one.
Looking at the real world, we see distinct societies emerge from shared experiences, and these societies wage war and blend into each other at the edges among people who share more than one set of beliefs. This is exactly what we would expect to see if truth had equally absolute and relative aspects. We would expect no two people to be exactly in agreement. We would expect people to get along on the basis of shared ideas and to be in conflict on the basis of their disagreements. And we would not expect to discover one “correct” society among thousands of wrong ones.
In fact, intimacy is only possible due to differences of opinion. If we were all the same, intimacy would be so boring that it would never last. He said intimacy is ruined by conflict. This is something only a chivalrous romantic would say. Relationships are defined by agreement and disagreement. Love is a daily uphill challenge, not a downhill tumble. Relationships are preserved by emotional distress as much as by satisfaction. In reality, the what matters for the purpose of procreation is that being with ‘the other’ produces strong emotions, not that those emotions are always pleasant.
And his trick is more pernicious than that. He uses the term “relativism” by itself. He doesn’t clarify whether he is speaking of morality or truth. This is a sort of expertise among these people. If we are speaking of morality, then we instinctively understand that our circumstances change our morality within a framework of an absolute standard of right behavior. If we are speaking of truth, we understand that an individual being is constrained by the world around it, and defined by its own decisions, within the broader context of a universe that exists in an absolute sense. If this weren’t the case, there would not be different species.
I wish I could argue this with the professor directly but I suspect he would avoid such an encounter. After all, he thinks he’s absolutely correct and that I am absolutely wrong. So there is no need for discussion, from his point of view.
I agree, he put the meaning of relativity in an absolute and useless extreme
The pragmatic definition of truth is what works. And communication works
the opposite extreme is wrong. By Negating that sentence we get
if the truth is not relative “communication would be possible,”
@@humanpictures3365 There, I agree. It took a couple of hours to understand what you meant. Otherwise stated, “Communication is possible because truth is not relative,” or, “If truth is not relative then communication is possible.” Likewise, “If truth is not absolute then communication is possible.” That is the most that philosophy can offer. This holds true in even most sanitary sciences like math and physics, where physics appears to follow certain laws at the observable level while also expressing an element of randomness at the subatomic, and math follows absolute rules at the basic levels while becoming increasingly vague at more sophisticated levels. I love Norse Heathenism because it teaches that the cosmos was created in a collision of order and chaos.
The truth is whatever you think it is until you change your mind, then it’s something else…what a realm
The truth is objective, set in absolute stone.
@@MarvinCasado-b5k that fact changes nothing about how we process it my friend…
I am not a relativist. But there are too many straw man arguments in that video. Besides, the consequences of relativism do not present an argument for the falseness of it.
I picked up on that too. I understand what he was saying, but he could’ve elaborated more.
I mean, is he essentially saying truth is not relative because… woo boy, wouldn’t that be scary?
I’m not a relativist myself, but this wasn’t exactly the most philosophically eloquent counter argument.
Seems like he just proved relativism. 2:18 yes you are right, the most powerful determines truth.. that's actually how it works now. Also, its not an either or scenario... if we create our own universe that doesn't mean our universes are so drastically different that we can't come to consensus... our universes will have common truths because we create them using similar tools, we build them on a human foundation. So this idea that communication and intimacy will break down completely is nonsense. All that means is we need better understanding of each other and the various universes we live in. In fact thinking that we share the same universe brings with it a level of assumption that will ultimately lead to conflict because you expect everyone to interact as you do... realizing we all have different versions of reality and striving to understand the other persons reality is where true communication and intimacy come from.
To start out saying that there is consequences of having different ethics or morality, blah blah blah doesn’t still prove it can’t be possible
I disagree. Conflict is part of nature. When we learn, we gain experience and we use that experience to interpret things such as words and concepts. We think by association. Each word means different things to different people. When I say "car", you associate that word with your experience of a car. The same goes for ideas and ideologies. Your idea of "good" can be someone else's idea of "bad". The "fixed meanings" of words come from collaborative efforts to define them. We have a propensity to co-operate with people who share a similar understanding of things such as what is good and bad, and we tend to reject those with a different understanding. In nature, strength is always favoured over weakness, it being the ability to turn things in your favour. The strong are the ones who shape the world, and the weak either seek to become strong themselves, or take the backseat.
All of our understanding of reality is derived from our perception of it. We have no way of reliably identifying truth; we can only compare which of any two things seems truer than the other.
The phoneme.
The truth is that a rocket needs a certain ammout of thrust to be able to break out of earth's gravity, the same rocket will always need about the same ammount of fuel, because gravity does not give a shit about human perception.
This guy is clearly intelligent and seems decent enough but this is so nonsensical it makes me wonder if the editing is not giving the full context. This should be titled "Professor gives false dichotomy for 4 Minutes!".
ehm, he didn't destroy anything..he just shared his opinion
Is that your opinion? Or is your statement objectively true?
That destroed relativism
@@edwardwicks304 I imagine he'd say it's an opinion seemingly defending relativism
he must live in some reality where everyone disagees on everything if relativism is true. as a relativist its my view that you can basically always find a truth that two people can agree upon, not because morality is objective, but because humans have evolved in a way to, say, prioritise survival over most wants. so if we can agree that survival is good, we can resolve any disagreements we have. or we dont, but at least at that point we understand each other. if morality is objective we would just be arguing over which set of morals is the right one, so saying relativism is bad because we have disagreements is a bad argument. its also a bad argument because, as another commenter noted, we already have disagreements all the time. like what color should the car we buy be? we resolve that disagreement or else we come to a standstill where we agree to disagree and there is just nothing to change the other's opinion. saying "well my moral code is objectively correct so youre just wrong" isnt any better than that
After thinking a lot about it i came to this conclusion: Objective reality exists but humans are incapable of perceiving it because of our unique point of view/limits.
Then it is not objective, the simple fact that I can have an opinion that differs from yours is the ultimate proof that there is no objective reality. Otherwise we would be able to see it. If we are not able to do that then it cannot be objective
@@v.f. Thank you so much, how didnt i see that?!
wdym
@@v.f. objective reality is what we are perceiving. The input is consistent, the form it takes subjectively is not. There cannot be a subjective reality without an objective reality underpinning it.
Not to mention some things are just true. If I shoot myself in the head, I will die. If I jump off a cliff, I will fall. These are things which are inarguably, and these simple things ties our reality together intrinsically. You cannot escape the real, some things cannot be interpreted or manipulated away.
@@v.f. A fact is naturally objective by the way. You've made an objective assertion in attempting to prove relativism.
Isn't he proposing and is-ought fallacy in this argument?
This comes across as nonsense to me. Let's break this down:
- There is no way you can move forward without some assumptions and not being a philosopher I'm not going to get them all but the one that I think is most relevant is that we have to assume that reality is real and nature is not out there deliberately deceiving us (yeah, I'm not going to entertain the brain in vat BS). This is what, whether they realize it or not that scientists, engineers doctors, actually all of us assume. Given that assumption:
--- We do not have our own reality. What we have is our internal model of the world (surroundings, universe... pick your poison) which is based on our senses, both present and historically.
--- Assuming our sense and our receptor of our senses (i.e. our brain) is reasonably not flawed then we will all share the reality around us similarly.
------ For example, with the above assumptions being true (allowing my lack of completeness because I am not a philosopher) if any two of us see a chair, our internal models of that chair, that is, our "knowing" we are looking at a chair, is close enough to the reality of that chair that we can both be reasonably certain that we are sharing the same (or so close to "same" we can just call it "same") perception of reality. This is easy stuff, we do that instinctively. That is, we know so well how our brains, senses and the way they represent the reality so is solid that we assume a shared reality. However, it's not as much of an assumption as you may think because constant input over years shows that to be true. Without diving into philosophy because I feel like I'm getting dangerously close to diving into that rabbit hole... every person in your life when you see them interact with a chair (along with yourself), and the rest of reality, you get verification of your closeness to reality as you have the same interactions... and I guess there is an assumption there that their internal model is causing them to react in the same ways that your internal model reacts... and if I go any further I will be too far done the rabbit hole so it's up to others if they want to go further... take a course in philosophy... I need to stop, it's really not much of an interest to me.
--- Where it gets more fuzzy/interesting is when we start contemplating more intangible subjects. For example: How much my spouse/partner (whatever term works for you) loves you. Now you are delving into more difficult realms and my perception may be different to yours - and probably will be - because we "judge" that with different experiences we are drawing on and from different levels of intimate knowledge as we must because it's not something as simple as physical object. These differences doesn't mean that there is a problem with our senses however, it's just a reflection of the richness of, in this case, human relational complexity, and in my opinion quite wonderful.
Anyway, that's enough from a layman but I won't lie and suggest I just came up with this on the fly, I have put much thought into this subject matter on and off over the years and touched on philosophy a tad (enough to know enough to be dangerous to myself and those around me with it unfortunately).
Thank you. Just thank you.
Consider this; the politicians want division, and what this man states in this video explains why the latest trans movements have gained such political traction. It’s simply because the politicians realize division creates wealth and power for them and when reality no longer is objective, and reality is subjective to the individual view there could be nothing else, except constant and pervasive division.
Thats why christ came and said he came here to divide not to bring peace. "We are confident in the victory of good over evil. " Emperor Selassie.
Wow amazing video. 3:30 this is basically a description of the modern western world.
The real problem in the world, as Dostoyevsky said, is not “good vs evil”, it is “good vs good”. What you see as evil in other people is typically something they consider good. There are no true evil people in the world (fortunately or unfortunately), except the very few mentally ill people (literally mentally ill.. not just ‘bad shit crazy’).. most people do things they think are good for themselves, their families, their communities, their society or other social groups they feel part of - and it is often seen as an act of aggression or pure evil by other people (often not understanding or just not being able to compromise without aggressive retaliation)..
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 actually, ultimate truth can never contradict itself. Pure is perfect.
@@thegoodthebadandtheugly579 oh .. and you are saying if someone thinks its ok to have a child sex slave , for example, thats ok, because they think its good? Get a brain . Seriously.
@@saphiregem1275 pure is perfect? Really? Where does this come from? 🙄 I say impure is perfect - how are you going to defend your argument? It is not as irrefutable as you may think at first.. 🙄
People resist objective reality because they cannot imagine the basis. So they accept relativity despite it being irrational, to his point. Why doesn't anyone describe the basis for objective reality?
I think that we are all shaped so differently by the realties that we grew up in and around. If every human was raised exactly the same, then maybe we’d all have the same reality. But just because people have slightly different realities from one another does not mean that we can’t have compassion and respect for someone else’s view. I don’t see someone else’s reality as a threat to my own. I understand we all have different paths.
Barbara Nagode ikr imajine if my reality was stealing and raping women 😂should i be accepted ?
Murder could define himself as a good person, men can define themselves as women, and the system or the world would fall. On the other hand, you are right at some cases. God bless that the religions accept each other and do not lead war among themselves.
*I don't defend any of these opinions I am just trying to extend the range of debate:))
You will then never know absolute truth. Your reality is a falsehood, enjoy.
@@michaeljoseph2285 That's BS, no one who's not lying claims to know "absolute truth". In order for communication to work there needs to be objective truths, and our beliefs either comport with them or not.
@@JLipetz Are you absolutely sure?
Is this man talking about relativism or subjetivism? Sorry got confused on that
turn that music off !!!!!
There’s a difference between realising reality is multiple and understanding its bad effects on the human experience. So your argument against a whole thought movement is based on a single part of it? How have you destroyed anything? You just demonstrated how we need to find points in common and adapt to other so the relativity of reality doesn’t crush us lmao
The social consequences of a truth, shouldn't determine its validity. To let our minds be clouded by what we wish to be true, rather than what is actually true, is ironically a very relativistic approach. This man is sawing through the same branch he is sitting on.
What do you mean?
@@_VISION. exactly what I wrote. I don't know how to clarify it, unless you give me something to clarify.
@@fanrik9583 that he is cutting the same branch he is sitting on
@@_VISION. The man is trying to disprove relativism, with a relativistic argument.
@@fanrik9583 noted. I agree. So absolutists will also say "the statement 'all truth is a relative' is an absolute statement, therefore a contradiction". For one I think that is the point of the statement because not everyone is going to agree with that statement, therefore relative. Secondly, even if it is a contradiction according to logic, does not mean it is void from being true.
this dosent disprove relativism it shows us how importnat objectivity is even if it is logically without any emotional bias (ie care for human dignity and whatnot) incorrect
Seems that relativity benefits those that want to control, as they shape the mindsets of the masses worldwide whilst making the masses believe they are shaping their own individual realities...
I loved the way he described it, I dont understand why you said "destorys", it seemed as if he perfectly explained WHY relativism is the most accurate response we have to our reality. Is too complex to write on a comment an this is not my best lenguage to express. Tho, I'd add that there is a fear of being our writers of the story. Of course, if there is no further truth we are the ones writing these narratives and therefore we should have responsabilities. I think humans are afraid of assuming our own responsabilities.
Sartre does not end “huis-clos” with “hell is others”, it’s a character who says it. And not at the end of the play.
We don't make other's yield. Intimacy isn't a battleground.
Horribly weak arguments. The good prof relies on logical fallacies (I spotted false dichotomies, strawman and slippery slope) as well as emotive persuasion techniques (aimed at bypassing the logical mind - why?) instead of reason. He's looking to persuade small minds. His argument is internally inconsistent because moral objectivity is in itself a manifestation of moral relativity - which better defines the universe of reality. Ironically, his defective and illogical arguments against moral relativism embody and manifest the very dystopian reality that he's arguing against. Is this guy for real? Does he live in the real world? How can you reject moral relativism without imposing your better version of reality on others? By force if necessary? Oh... isn't that the "history" of the world? Sooner or later might makes right. So what have you achieved? A smarter way would be to look at moral relativity along a continuum - say as Locke's archetypal state of nature - and the starting point towards an intelligent social contract. But who needs that? Moral objectivity has a secret ingredient: CONTROL. Elites love it. Whoever makes the rules, owns the game. Try harder prof.. not buying it. :-D
I see it this way: reality is relative but there is only 1 truth, which is i possible to find out for a human beeing, something like the number "p". Irracional. It's about how you define reality, but everyone must not define it the same way. For someone "real" is everything, he cen touch and see. For some one it's things he heard of too, but didn't see them for his selfe. As real can someone see things, we don't know about yet. (Like it was it real to fly for a human until like.. jusst 5000 years before. And in europe and americe just something about 500 years or less - It's called creativity)
Every one has it's own reality but in the same truth. But everyone does hava his own truth in the same reality.
Technicaly reality is the truth. But you cen never know the truth, it's irracional, because someone can be lying.
LOL WHAT? he is saying you can MEASURE truth and your ideas are just that, fucking ideaological ideas
Utter nonsense. If the power structure determines absolutism, then the evolution or the shifting of the power structure is bound to give birth to relativism. We just need to be practical about what works in different situations. Absolutism and relativism runs simultaneously. There lies no question of one dominating the other.
0:26 no it doesn't lol
What is a woman?
@@09bamasky someone with a female penis?
This argument is entirely predicated on zero sum reasoning, and only reflects on the 'reality' which exists outside the human experience. Part of reality is also the human experience of that external reality. In fact personal intimacy is the place where humanity enters the realm reality, right at the point where we share our experience of whatever is happening with each other. This is not a zero sum game, this professor is incorrect. We do not have to have the same experience internally because we are sensing the same external stimulation. That's flawed on it's face.
Objectivity has nothing to do with reality. Objectivity pertains to language and language is system we use to represent our impressions i.e. how we perceive reality which are inherently subjective. People become confused about this because they're unable to discern their thoughts about what is from what actually is.
As well as nothing he says following from anything else he says, if God exists - and he clearly thinks God does exist (as do I) - then truth is demonstrably variable and not fixed. Why? Because God can do anything and thus God can falsify any true proposition. Thus, any and all true propositions can, in principle, be false.
Nice to hear someone who truly understands relativism. But then again I say that only because his views agrees with my views.
You can say that because it's objectively true. A tree exists. You and I agreed to call it a tree. Regardless of what you and I call it, it's still a tree.
@@gracelewis6071 That I agree to call "it" a tree does not commit me to its objective existence, nor even to an objective meaning for "existence", for "meaning" or for "objective".
@@gracelewis6071, well, it exists only if you assume your senses are a valid source of truth and don't lie.
@@georgesquenot1404 Calling it a tree has nothing to do with what I was saying. You don't have to call it anything, and it's still what it is. It doesn't need "meaning" in order to exist - it simply is what it is, regardless of you/me/anyone and any thoughts about it.
@@SergioLopez-yu4cu Why, are you schizophrenic?
That's a bit of a tongue in cheek answer, but I actually saw a schizophrenic person check their reality through checking a video of the place they were seeing a hallucination, and verifying that the hallucination was not on the video. So even schizophrenic people can use their senses to verify reality. Our senses are how we experience this world. Jiddu Krishnamurti has a lot to say about this/insightful questions to inquire into this.
This man really just doesn't actually engage with any arguments for reletavism like Quine's Ontological Relativism argument, Latter Wittgenstein's Work, any Post-Structuralist philosophy, he just talks about unpleasant consequences, doesn't talk about any real premises or arguments for relativism, so it's far from destroyed
Great explanation Tim!
I'm sorry but where exactly is the "destruction" here? All I saw is an intelligent man describing humanity. All the problems he sees in relativism are problems that exist today. Every single one. If morals aren't relativistic in nature then why everything he mentioned in interpersonal relations have been true since the dawn of time? All I saw is factual proof and reinforcement of relativism. Just because it paints a really ugly picture doesn't make it wrong.
Despite, relativeness exists because perspective is inevitable.
Exactly.
Which ideas are the objective ones?
This doesn't disprove relativism. Sure, every statement would be basically meaningless, just like without free will, all forms of psychology and justice become meaningless. If that's how it is, these are the consequences.
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that proving/disproving objective reality is fundamentally impossible.
"Proving/Disproving objective reality is fundamentally impossible."
By that standard, would you say that subjective reality is objectively provable? I say this with all respect, but your statement disproves itself.
@@GhostBearCommander Saying something is impossible to prove is not a standard of evidence. It is a statement that it can not meet whatever the standard of evidence is.
@@jordannewberry9561 Perhaps so.
Still, the Law of Non-Contradiction dictates that two opposing statements cannot be the simultaneous reality of a system.
For instance, if I flip a coin, cover it before viewing, and state, "the coin is both heads up, and tails up"... the statement is objectively untrue, since it contradicts itself. Similarly, the statement "the coin is either heads or tails up" cannot be falsified because only those possibilities exist.
Hence, it is objectively true that the coin toss will be universally either heads or tails for everyone, regardless of circumstances and vice versa.
Therefore, Truth must be objective because Contradiction would not exist unless it had a basis of reality.
Contradiction proves Objectivity over Subjectivity.
@@GhostBearCommander If you don't mind me being nit-picky, "the coin is either heads or tails up" could be falsified if the coin was held sideways. A true dichotomy under the Law of Excluded Middle would be "the coin is either heads up or not heads up."
Can you prove that you are not pluged into the matrix right now? Can you prove that you are not deceived by Descartes' Demon? If not, I don't think you can prove anything about objective reality. The Law of Non-Contradiction is a description of the world you experience. It is vulnerable to Hume's Problem of Induction.
@@jordannewberry9561 These are good observations and, while worth considering, also easilly usable for proving Objective truth:
Hume's law of induction, a matrix simulation, or Descartes Deamon all have an underlying pre-assumption of reality to them.
In other words, under the circumstances that these situations present themselves, they in essence become an attempt at using Objective truth to disprove itself.
Every objection to Objective Truth will always have a nugget of assumed Objectivity somewhere.
Seems to me that you cant have a subjective experience or interpretation of absolutely nothing. Therefore an objective reality must first be in place for you to experience and interpret subjectivity. Conteary to what he says however, reality doesn't determine meaning (i.e realityitself doesnt add an opinion, value or emotion to its existence). Reality just is, wether i like it or not. Meaning in this context is then entirely subjective.
It also seems like we all see and understand different aspects of a shared and objective reality that is unique to our individual level of understanding.
We simply choose how we allow reality to affect us when we respond to it and/or we alter some aspects of it when we subject it to our will or intent. Our perception of what we experience changes when we align our beliefs with what is objectively verifiable and when we increase our understanding of ourselves as individuals.
Another objectivist mistaking truth for perspective.
Ok jew
Are you a relativist jew?
I apologize to everyone, but the truth is abolute.
The truth is: everyone dies.
This means that everything between 0 and 1 is relative,
This means that a person has 2 absolute limits, those that can be overcome and those that cannot be overcome.
Sry, but that's true
I can destroy this professor in one word: perceptions.
You already failed. Perception is in the relative domain. Truth is in the objective domain. What he implied is our subjective perceptions are hinged to the authoritative objective truth. Our PERCEPTIONS are measured by an already established truth. The only way perception can exist is if there is an objective reality housing it. A singular object is truth in this case, and the perception of that object changes depending on what angle or what light you may observe that object in.
“There is no objective truth” is in fact and absolutist statement.
@@Boxxxxxxxxx who says there has to be an objective reality? Do you have proof of such claim? Even then it still doesn’t answer questions of aesthetics really well, due to the fact that people look at a number of different things in a number of different ways. This stuff is kind of basic my man. Why do you think we have so many different professions,religions and crazy ideas.
It’s not all objective my man.
@@NikoNikolaia If there is no objective reality then my reality is not your reality, then why are we sharing the same reality in having a communication between two individuals? isn't because there is a conformity that we can communicate using the same language now? can we agree that we watched this video? can we agree that we are humans? if yes then you have already brought a proposition or judgement that is true. Then, even common sense is an objective reality. Ironically, common sense is not very common for people who do not have common sense like relativists.
aesthetics is the knowledge of something which brings pleasure. if there is no true beauty in things then how can we even find beauty? if I say the rose is beautiful. This is true. There is an objective reality. Beauty cannot be ugly, that is the objective reality.
how is common sense common exactly?
Also your limitations on what questions you ask is exactly why I don’t take your points seriously. We are humans? That’s such a stupid question. Questions like what does it mean to be human, what are humans capable of, just because someone is human does it mean they have agency, is nature or nurture the best way to teach a child. Like seriously these questions aren’t objective. The experiences that we live in are a byproduct of our environment, which can be various in different ways.
You know what’s weird, I grant you that people can be objective, but the objective ways of looking are though specific methodologies. Not everything is looked into a objective light; even so that’s a perspective amongst many.
There is a dualism that you are refusing to see. Just because someone says something is doesn’t mean it’s so. Especially when you are claiming a rose is beautiful. To you it might be. You can choose for yourself what is beauty to you; eye of the beholder. Reality is subjective with bits of objective pieces floating around.
@@NikoNikolaia I have to agree with you that Flavio's arguments are weak and based on opinions and consensus beliefs (many of which people have been conditioned/programmed to believe in).
>There is a dualism that you are refusing to see.
>Reality is subjective with bits of objective pieces floating around.
Precisely. Dualism is basically 2 opposite extremes of the same thing, thus an objective reality is simultaneously also a subjective one. It is impossible for a strictly objective reality to exist, yet we're conditioned to believe in one, which is the root cause of a lot of problems we face today.
The question "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to witness it, does it make a sound?" is an excellent thought experiment, because it shows how much people just assume things about reality. There is no way to prove that a tree does make a sound when no observer (and this includes any type of recording devices) is there to witness it. It is even impossible to prove whether the tree even exists when no observer is there to look at the tree. The point here is the assertion that reality is objective, is based on faith and not evidence.
We tend to experience reality similar enough, that we can come to a consensus about many things. That does not automatically mean that we all have the same exact experience, perhaps we experience things differently, but we label things the same way. We all believe the sky is blue, but does that mean that all of us sees blue exactly the same way? What if someone sees red, but they label it as blue? That way, both people would be in agreement with each other, despite that they're seeing two different colors. Food for thought.
Hypothesis:
In a subjective world, language couldn’t exist.
However, language does exist.
Therefore, life is objective.
Counterargument:
Assume the world is subjective.
The only thing that truly exists of consequence is my consciousness.
Everyone else is inconsequential.
The language that I use to communicate to other inconsequential beings is possible due to my (proven conscious observer) creation of the language, which the inconsequential beings adapt since they are beings of my subjective creation.
In this case, a subjective reality could exist with language.
Would love to hear some thoughts about this argument.
Then why are there so many languages? If language was objective, why do some languages have words and phrases for certain concepts while others do not? How many languages have died and been lost to time while others continue to thrive and evolve? Language is built on consensus of groups of people and then taught to each generation.
summary of this video: it would be painful for me if there was no objective truth so it must be objective truth
actual summary of this video: If there were no objective truth then there would be no truth, only power
This is a jumbled mess of nonsense, misrepresentation and appeal to consequences.
How?
@@sebmckay5295 Well, he's pretty much all over the place during the clip, jumping from linguistics to epistemology and (seemingly) back to linguistics again without delineating the differences in what he's talking about, but some of the quotes I found the most egregious were:
"The consequence of relativism is that in the end we'll all have our own reality."
In his own words, as I mentioned in my original comment, this is by definition an appeal to consequences. It doesn't matter what a position might entail as it relates to the consequences, if it's true it's true.
"If words don't have some kind of fixed meaning communication becomes impossible."
This is an extremely weird assertion. Words don't have intrinsic meaning, they have common usages. Our ability to communicate relies on the fact that our interlocutors share that usage, not on the suggested fact that we have somehow stumbled upon the 'actual' meaning of words and are able to tap into that source on a communal level.
"Intimacy becomes impossible."
No, it wouldn't. Unless he has a very atypical take on the word 'intimacy'.
"It's a devastating vision of the human person."
He is entitled to that opinion, but it has no bearing on the truth of the underlying assertion.
Now, I'm not in any way defending relativism, I'm just pointing out that the things brought up in the video don't pertain to 'debunking relativism', that he conflates different topics and that he continuously appeals to the consequences of holding a certain view, which is irrelevant.
I'm not, admittedly, sure what I meant when I said he's misrepresenting (someone). Unless I missed something this time around, I think that may have been a mistake on my part. Also, it's possible that he isn't talking about these things as it's presented in the title of the video, something that wouldn't be fair to fault him for, but from what he presents, my general assessment of his arguments still stands.
There is no objective meaning in anything. You can hope that the people around you have their own subjective realities but there is really no way of knowing.
So sad people are still discussing those basic things
ikr truth is measureable unlike someone's fantasies
This argument seems to boil down to "If X, then humans would be all unhappy. I don't want humans to be unhappy. Therefore, not-X."
He's drawing out the ultimate consequences of a school of thought. This is not intended to be a demonstrative argument. I doubt he even titled the video. But more importantly, if man is a creature who seeks happiness and X doesn't make him ultimately happy, why deal with X? When dealing with human affairs, the consequences of a thing are pertinent.
It is actually important to talk about the universal grotesqueness of human events should relativism reign. For, it is quite telling that all world religions, tribes, clans, and nations throughout time have NOT been relativistic. What this suggests is, at the very least, to be a relativist one must be a snobby elitist who thinks 99% of people in world history are not only dumb, but dangerously stupid. Does the relativist really want to go that far? Or, can we with keen eyes heed the common sense message one gleams from the grotesque consequences of relativism? I'll side with 99% of humanity and common sense.
Generally the idea is arguing with someone is to understand their idea. In this case what does relativism mean? If we look at history morality varies. In ancient China morality was bound up in a series of duties. Duties to one's parents, duties to one's subjects and so forth. In Christian morality there are series of commands about conduct. If one lives in either system it is possible to understand the framework of the system. It is also possible to understand the framework of another system. In addition over time systems change. In the 18th Century in England it was thought okay to execute people for low level offences. Theft of turnips that sort of thing. Now people think that there should be a link between punishment and seriousness of the crime. Suggesting that there is no objective morality or reality is not to say everyone makes up their own thing. It is that societies and parts of societies have different systems.
I disagree with his conclusion, his belief in objective truth, but I love his world model. Each of us lives in near isolation inside our own subjective bubble. I think he shows great insight and explains so much. Ironically, he finds this devastating. Can someone explain this to me?
Do we though? If I were to physically harm you, are you gonna complain about it? And if you complain, can I just say that it didn't happen because that's your perception? Or, are we agreed that it did and that I'm a filthy liar? Usually this then boils down to semantics.
@@beircheartaghaistin2332 An example of what I mean is how we perceive color. We know that the color of a table is not a property of the table but only our perception of the table. I will not see the table same way a dog or a color-blind person does. It will even look different to me in different light. So, the table does not seem to have an absolute "true" color. And even if it did, how would I know what it was? Since our brains and senses give us only a filtered view of "reality", we PROBABLY can never experience absolute, objective reality.
@@raygiguette8677 Do we have a perception of what we are calling a table?
@@beircheartaghaistin2332 We each have a perception of the table, but there is no way of knowing if we have (a) the SAME perception of the table or (b) the "correct/absolute" perception of the table.
@@raygiguette8677 So, the factual statement could be that there is a thing we are calling a 'table'. Or, that there is the perception of the 'table'... do you see where I'm going with this?