Relativism

[elman]

I see. So what you are saying is you don't know. Your philosophy to me is rather hollow. It places morality in a grey area where it's safe and hard to see. This is not an attack on you mind you. It's understandable. Better to do so than to have to stare at a certainty that offers no compromise yes?

Even sociopaths have a morality of a sort...thier own. What is disturbing to most is that it is not so different from our own...just more extreme.

But still I will contend, however warped it may be, that understanding of right and wrong is there.

If I understand you I agree with you. I think on some level even psychopaths knew it is wrong to hurt people, but that is pure speculation on my part. I think suicide bombers are forcing themselve to do what a little voice inside them is telling them is wrong. Again, I admit, pure speculation.

 

[psychedelicist]

I see. So what you are saying is you don't know. Your philosophy to me is rather hollow. It places morality in a grey area where it's safe and hard to see. This is not an attack on you mind you. It's understandable. Better to do so than to have to stare at a certainty that offers no compromise yes?

Even sociopaths have a morality of a sort...thier own. What is disturbing to most is that it is not so different from our own...just more extreme.

But still I will contend, however warped it may be, that understanding of right and wrong is there.

I do not understand how it is even a philosophy at all, I simply have not done extensive psychological research into the minds of sociopaths. I've personally met one person who for years seemed normal, but would be considered a sociopath for the simple reason that he doesn't mind killing in the least. You know how it always goes, it's the people that you least expect thaty turn out to be the sociopaths. And why? Because they are quite normal in every way except for a lack of consience. After talking to the person I knew who was a sociopath, after I learned he had killed someone and got sent to prison for it, I visited him. I asked him if he felt anything whatsoever as he commited a cold blooded murder. We were close enough of friends to know that he would not lie to me if I asked him. And he said nope. Not one bit of a feeling of 'this is wrong', only a fear afterwards of getting caught. He said it felt no different to him than watching the TV, or any normal everyday activity.

If you've seen the Devil's Rejects, it does quite a good job of depicting what some of the more deranged sociopaths are like. You don't see them repenting at the end of the movie, or realizing what they did wrong, quite the opposite- you see them get killed gunning down a roadblock of cops. Even after they themselves had been tortured nearly to death, they never once questioned why it happened to them or brought morality into it, and never once did they even feel remorse for anyone they killed. (sorry for giving away about the whole plotline )

I think you are not seeing the full ramifications of what you are saying: If moral values are like paintings and we are meant to all take away different perspectives, this means that even very warped views bcome valid. If morality is a purely relative concept and there are no absolutes, then we come to the conclusion that there is effectively no morality being that people make up enough concepts on morals that justify clear transgressions against the common good. There have been significant amount of people that have believed in genocide -- take the example of hundreds of thousands of Hutus massacring their neighbor Tutsis in Rwanda. If we allow morality to be entirely subjective, then how can there be a proper condemnation of something as this? People perceive themselves as victims and then justify their crimes against a perceived offender. Moral relativism can be used to essentially make gross infractions on human rights seem acceptable, being that there are more than enough examples of a majority of people choosing to do something this grossly immoral.

Indeed it does. This is unfortunate that it really is a bigger-dog-gets-the-bone world, I wish it weren't that way, but it is. We all have our own perceptions, we all think ours is above everyone else's, and we will fight for what we percieve to be right. In the end, it's really just 2 sides calling each other evil and fighting for what they want. Believing you are doing right and they are doing wrong is great incentive to fight for your beliefs, that's really the only reason I see us doing it.

 

[elman]

I do not understand how it is even a philosophy at all, I simply have not done extensive psychological research into the minds of sociopaths. I've personally met one person who for years seemed normal, but would be considered a sociopath for the simple reason that he doesn't mind killing in the least. You know how it always goes, it's the people that you least expect thaty turn out to be the sociopaths. And why? Because they are quite normal in every way except for a lack of consience. After talking to the person I knew who was a sociopath, after I learned he had killed someone and got sent to prison for it, I visited him. I asked him if he felt anything whatsoever as he commited a cold blooded murder. We were close enough of friends to know that he would not lie to me if I asked him. And he said nope. Not one bit of a feeling of 'this is wrong', only a fear afterwards of getting caught. He said it felt no different to him than watching the TV, or any normal everyday activity.

If you've seen the Devil's Rejects, it does quite a good job of depicting what some of the more deranged sociopaths are like. You don't see them repenting at the end of the movie, or realizing what they did wrong, quite the opposite- you see them get killed gunning down a roadblock of cops. Even after they themselves had been tortured nearly to death, they never once questioned why it happened to them or brought morality into it, and never once did they even feel remorse for anyone they killed. (sorry for giving away about the whole plotline )



Indeed it does. This is unfortunate that it really is a bigger-dog-gets-the-bone world, I wish it weren't that way, but it is. We all have our own perceptions, we all think ours is above everyone else's, and we will fight for what we percieve to be right. In the end, it's really just 2 sides calling each other evil and fighting for what they want. Believing you are doing right and they are doing wrong is great incentive to fight for your beliefs, that's really the only reason I see us doing it.

Movies are not reality. Evil is real and it is not just a matter of what someone thinks about it. The world is survival of the fittest unless there is a God, a Creator who is loving and who crated us to be like Him. Then the world becomes something else than just dog eat dog. Humans have a choice. They can be just another animal or they can be superior to that and love each other. It is not just two sides calling each other evil.

 

[Zovingas]

Then, since evil is real and absolute, you won't mind me asking you to tell me an act that is evil absolutely, regardless of circumstance?

I fail to see how belief can be anything but subjective. Isn't its relativity part of its nature? If you deny that, you really should show me, logically, how, in the absence of facts, one belief can be passed off as 'the truth'.

 

[psychedelicist]

Movies are not reality. Evil is real and it is not just a matter of what someone thinks about it. The world is survival of the fittest unless there is a God, a Creator who is loving and who crated us to be like Him. Then the world becomes something else than just dog eat dog. Humans have a choice. They can be just another animal or they can be superior to that and love each other. It is not just two sides calling each other evil.

Not all ovies, but one directed by Rob Zombie (who is a self-restrained sociopath by his own admission), and from my own personal experiences with my friend who turned out a sociopath I can tell you that this movie is suprisingly accurate.

As to all the rest of your post, yes, this is essentially how I see the world, and it doesn't bother me as much. of course the perception of dog eat dog is still just that, a perception. Not necessarily a correct one even though I and you would see it that way in the absence of a god.

 

[levi501]

Ever seen footage/pictures of the Vietnam war? A child running down the road on fire from a napalm blast? Don't tell me that part of you doesn't shake at that image.

God writes his moral laws on all our hearts.

yah, the US is known for torturing children, we relect the ones that do it though.
For instance in just the last couple of years the US has used white phosphorus as munitions against Iraqies. I've seen pictures where children have had their skin peeled off because of it. We "liberate" a country from a ruler that used chemical weapons on his people by doing what?... You guessed it, by using chemical weapons on the very same people. Now would you consider using a chemical on an area with women and children that causes their skin to peel off or if inhaled causes them to suffocate because it eats them up from the inside as torture? Well I would. Still 50% of voters relected the man that's responsible for what's going on over there... so there's obviously some christians in the US that find torturing children to be morally relative.

 

[Cleany]

Torturing babies is inherintly wrong. Not relative to anyone's perception.

but you are missing the point. there is a bigger "picture" (do you get it?) here. yes the action is wrong, but what lead to the action, how can we prevent it. we split up morality into chunks and seperate them artificially. perhaps relativism is about realising that there is a bigger picture, or that there is a picture at all, rather than just absolute statements.

in fact, if you split up morality into absolute statements, you destroy it. those statements should be a guide, not an absolute, the only absolute is the whole, not the seperated parts.

by torturing babies do you mean circumcision?

lol

I think you are not seeing the full ramifications of what you are saying: If moral values are like paintings and we are meant to all take away different perspectives, this means that even very warped views bcome valid. If morality is a purely relative concept and there are no absolutes, then we come to the conclusion that there is effectively no morality being that people make up enough concepts on morals that justify clear transgressions against the common good. There have been significant amount of people that have believed in genocide -- take the example of hundreds of thousands of Hutus massacring their neighbor Tutsis in Rwanda. If we allow morality to be entirely subjective, then how can there be a proper condemnation of something as this? People perceive themselves as victims and then justify their crimes against a perceived offender. Moral relativism can be used to essentially make gross infractions on human rights seem acceptable, being that there are more than enough examples of a majority of people choosing to do something this grossly immoral.

what do you mean "valid"? there is only one thing that you can attribute to all peoples views and that is that they belong to someone, they are that persons, that is the only thing that they have in common.

for me the dangerous thing about a persons views are that they thing they are exactly that, valid. once you stop questioning morality that is when it becomes dangerous. once you are happy with the limited view that you indefinately have that is where the trouble begins.

the reality is that no persons views are "valid", and the nearest we can approach validity is to realise that we have more to learn, and that our own perspective is that, our own perspective, and not "valid" or absolutely correct.

relitavism isnt about values, it is about awareness, about seeing the bigger picture - not shutting yourself off as soon as you find the "right answer".

i would be willing to bet that all of your examples of bad things here are in fact a direct result of people seeing things from an "absolute" point of view, they most certainly could have done with questioning their morality!

 

[elman]

Then, since evil is real and absolute, you won't mind me asking you to tell me an act that is evil absolutely, regardless of circumstance?

I fail to see how belief can be anything but subjective. Isn't its relativity part of its nature? If you deny that, you really should show me, logically, how, in the absence of facts, one belief can be passed off as 'the truth'.

Being unloving is evil. Hitler murder of the Jews was evil. Circumstance does not justify it. Suicide bombing is evil and not justifyable.

 

[elman]

Not all ovies, but one directed by Rob Zombie (who is a self-restrained sociopath by his own admission), and from my own personal experiences with my friend who turned out a sociopath I can tell you that this movie is suprisingly accurate.

As to all the rest of your post, yes, this is essentially how I see the world, and it doesn't bother me as much. of course the perception of dog eat dog is still just that, a perception. Not necessarily a correct one even though I and you would see it that way in the absence of a god.

I agree. If there is no God, then the world is dog eat dog and we survive only until we die.

 

[Casstranquility]

Evil is real and it is not just a matter of what someone thinks about it.

Evil is not real to me.

The world is survival of the fittest unless there is a God

If the world was survival of the fittest, humans would not exist.

Then the world becomes something else than just dog eat dog.

Dogs don't eat dogs, normally.

They can be just another animal or they can be superior to that and love each other.

We are NOT superior to animals. Animals can love each other, too.

It is not just two sides calling each other evil.

Well, it's probably 6 billion sides calling each other evil.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman




Torturing babies is inherintly wrong. Not relative to anyone's perception.

but you are missing the point. there is a bigger "picture" (do you get it?) here. yes the action is wrong, but what lead to the action, how can we prevent it. we split up morality into chunks and seperate them artificially. perhaps relativism is about realising that there is a bigger picture, or that there is a picture at all, rather than just absolute statements.

in fact, if you split up morality into absolute statements, you destroy it. those statements should be a guide, not an absolute, the only absolute is the whole, not the seperated parts.

The issue was not are some things relative. The issue was are somethings wrong. You admit this is something that is wrong. You can analize it to death and it is still wrong. That is not relative.

 

[elman]

Evil is not real to me.

Is Hitler real? Is anything real to you? Are there people who are unloving to each other? That is what evil is.

If the world was survival of the fittest, humans would not exist.

I don't know why you would think that.

Dogs don't eat dogs, normally.

They do if they are starving.

We are NOT superior to animals. Animals can love each other, too.

Really? Have you seen any cows taking care of strange cows or worried about a horse that is sick and in pain?

 

[Cleany]

The issue was not are some things relative. The issue was are somethings wrong. You admit this is something that is wrong. You can analize it to death and it is still wrong. That is not relative.

yes but there is more than one thing wrong in this example, that is the point, the action is wrong, the situation the boy is in was wrong. there is more than one answer, like there is more than one perspective or meaning from a picture.

 

[Casstranquility]

Is Hitler real? Is anything real to you? Are there people who are unloving to each other? That is what evil is.

Yes, but being that he was here on this earth, he wasn't really himself anyway. Yes, God. I see people being unloving to each other, but I have reason to think that is an illusion.

I don't know why you would think that.

It's a fact of evolution. The human being is too dependent at birth to survive in such a world.

Really? Have you seen any cows taking care of strange cows or worried about a horse that is sick and in pain?

Animals love differently then us. They are probably even smarter than us. I read that someone saw once a gathering of birds who had just witnessed the death of a young one. They were all very upset at this...but after a moment, they began to sing again, for life is still beautiful, and there's no need to focus on death.
All animals have their reasons for what they do. Can you tell me what you mean by a cow taking care of a cow? Why would a cow be worried about a horse that is sick and in pain? Cows know nothing of worry, for that is a human malady. Cows know that they can do nothing for the horse, cannot stop the horses pain, so why worry about it?
Animals cry for each other, animals take care of each other. Animals may not be exactly like humans, but they are not meant to be. That doesn't make them inferior, nor does it make them incapable of love.

 

[psychedelicist]

Is Hitler real? Is anything real to you? Are there people who are unloving to each other? That is what evil is.

Says who and what? If there is a PROVEABLY objective source we can go to to find out about what's moral and what isn't, let me know. That 'gut feeling' is no more than evolutionary instinct for survival of the species, we can't rely on that to be objective either.

Really? Have you seen any cows taking care of strange cows or worried about a horse that is sick and in pain?

I have seen many examples of packs of dogs taking care of strays, adopting parentless cubs into their pack, etc.

It's a fact of evolution. The human being is too dependent at birth to survive in such a world.

I don't know what evolution you're talking about, humans are the most resourceful beings on the planet which makes us the best predators even if physically we are the weakest animals. Knowledge is the best weapon as they say.

 

[Zovingas]

Appeals to emotion do not an argument make

Who cares whether or not we think Hitler's actions are evil? How does our disapproval of his actions make them absolutely wrong?

Also, would you care to define 'unloving'? That seems to be a rather vague catch-all. Is merely not caring evil? Cause it's not loving.

 

[dianalee4jc]

Now, when you look at the picture, is that the EXACT meaning you draw from it? Most likely not. More likely you draw a different meaning from it. But then whose interpretation is correct?

An interpretation is not truth, except that it would be true that it is your interpretation. But there would be an absolute truth to the meaning of the image in the painting, and that would be the truth that the ARTIST put into it. What was the artist's reason for the symbolism? Discern that, and you have the truth.

And so, the truth of the universe we live in is not determined by our interpretations, but by the intent of the Creator. His truth is absolute truth.

The painting does not have any meaning in itself, it is a jumble of colors and paper.

Not so. Do your words on this discussion board have any meaning? They are simply digital blips, 1s and 0s. But surely you would say that they do have meaning! Materialistically, a painting may be nothing more than paint on canvas, but we have devised certain abstract forms, such as language or visual symbolism, the purpose of which is to impart meaning and truth. These things are simply the tools that we use.

Yet we give it a purpose, for ourselves. Outside of what we give to it it is nothing more than an object.

I can take a drinking glass and use it as a flower pot... but that does not alter the fact that it was made to be a drinking glass. The purpose I give it does not change it's truth.

It is the PERCEPTION that truth does not exist, not the FACT that it does not.

But this perception does not alter the FACT that truth DOES exist! If you have the perception that it doesn't, then you have another truth... that you have not yet perceived truth. You can't escape this. If you say you do not perceive truth, then you yourself have stated a truth (that you don't perceive it), and therefore that truth exists.

Since perceptions cannot be truer than one another, they cannot be labelled as right or wrong.

What you are talking about here is not truth, but opinion. And even there, it is TRUE that you have a certain opinion.

No laws about morality, nothing inheirently right or wrong,

If that is the case, can I come and steal your computer? After all, my "truth" or my "perception" might be that it is okay for me to do that. But I feel strongly that you would object! Whose truth is THE truth? Even if we just look to the legal system that says that theft is wrong, doesn't that represent a truth? It is TRUE that it is wrong to steal someone's computer, no matter what the thief might perceive.

and we are now percieving 'Everything' as if it were a painting, we give our meanings to it, we assign subjective values to it

But again, you're only talking about opinion. With the painting, setting aside interpretations of its symbolism, isn't it true that the painting IS a painting?

Absolute truth is not opinion or interpretation. Those may be "personal" truths, but they do nothing to take away from absolute truth.

God exists... or He does not exist. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, no matter what your perception or mine. The truth (or lack of truth) is not in the perception, but in the reality.

Cheers,
Diana

 

[Cleany]

An interpretation is not truth, except that it would be true that it is your interpretation. But there would be an absolute truth to the meaning of the image in the painting, and that would be the truth that the ARTIST put into it. What was the artist's reason for the symbolism? Discern that, and you have the truth.

And so, the truth of the universe we live in is not determined by our interpretations, but by the intent of the Creator. His truth is absolute truth.

when you say that there would be "an absolute truth" to the meaning, persumably you mean that this is one, single whole truth.

but if this is true, it seems quite obvious that a human would actually not be able to know this single, whole truth, they would only be able to know a part of it. (obvious bible quote about this if you wish).

yes this single truth is not determined by us, of course, but seeing as we can only understand a part of it, and not the whole, this has 2 consequences:

1. that we only know a part of it, one perspective, as the op states.

2. that we must work together to know the whole truth. it follows from this that we must be aware that none of us knows it all to be able to work together.

Not so. Do your words on this discussion board have any meaning? They are simply digital blips, 1s and 0s. But surely you would say that they do have meaning! Materialistically, a painting may be nothing more than paint on canvas, but we have devised certain abstract forms, such as language or visual symbolism, the purpose of which is to impart meaning and truth. These things are simply the tools that we use.

let me give another alternative.

the picture has meaning as long as people get together to try to understand it. if people dont care about the picture, or people dont want to work together then it might have meaning, but it is powerless.

the power of truth is in the willingness of people to work together to find it. i think that the picture analogy helps us towards this.

also i believe that this is what god wants. also the search for truth isnt simply analysis and conclusion. some of the meanings of the picture lead to action, not conclusion. i believe that this actually has the most meaning. its not just about working together on the same plane of understanding, its about all levels of understanding working together.

I can take a drinking glass and use it as a flower pot... but that does not alter the fact that it was made to be a drinking glass. The purpose I give it does not change it's truth.

thus it would be essential to find out the purpose of this truth! i wonder what i might be? to divide men, or to unite them? which kind of analogy might work for that?

But this perception does not alter the FACT that truth DOES exist! If you have the perception that it doesn't, then you have another truth... that you have not yet perceived truth. You can't escape this. If you say you do not perceive truth, then you yourself have stated a truth (that you don't perceive it), and therefore that truth exists.

i agree with you, truth does exist. the next step is to ask "in what form does it exist?"

What you are talking about here is not truth, but opinion. And even there, it is TRUE that you have a certain opinion.

lol you could go rounds for ages like this. actually it is more "correct" than true, truth, when related to things theological should be more like "reality", the word truth seems to suggest that it could be summed up in words, and lets face it, words could never do justice to the reality or truth of god!

how about saying what is "good" rather than what is "true"?

If that is the case, can I come and steal your computer? After all, my "truth" or my "perception" might be that it is okay for me to do that. But I feel strongly that you would object! Whose truth is THE truth? Even if we just look to the legal system that says that theft is wrong, doesn't that represent a truth? It is TRUE that it is wrong to steal someone's computer, no matter what the thief might perceive.

oh well there you go. you have demonstrated clearly here that "true" actually relates to "good". this presents an immediate problem with the search for truth.

for example, some people (certainly not me) say that it is "true" that god will throw some people into hell for eternal torture, but many other people will say that cant be because it isnt "good". there is a direct conflict here which opens up to a wider issue that needs a great deal of exploring.

why do we know what is good or not anyway? it is important? does it have anything to do with the "truth"?

But again, you're only talking about opinion. With the painting, setting aside interpretations of its symbolism, isn't it true that the painting IS a painting?

Absolute truth is not opinion or interpretation. Those may be "personal" truths, but they do nothing to take away from absolute truth.

God exists... or He does not exist. He cannot both exist and not exist at the same time, no matter what your perception or mine. The truth (or lack of truth) is not in the perception, but in the reality.

Cheers,
Diana

i believe, as you do, that there is absolute truth.

the question is what are we to do with it?

 

[dianalee4jc]

when you say that there would be "an absolute truth" to the meaning, persumably you mean that this is one, single whole truth.

No, that isn't what I said. Absolute truth and ultimate truth are not the same thing. If I say that I like broccoli, the absolute truth IS that I like broccoli. You might hate broccoli. But that doesn't change the fact that I like it. Still, both facts, liking and hating, are opinions about a thing that it itself and absolute truth... broccoli exists.

The true interpretation of the painting is the meaning that the ARTIST gave it.

When I was in high school, we spent scads of hours talking about what a particular author meant with his writing... now people want to say that the truth of the writing is in whatever way the reader interprets it (deconstructivism). Wrong. The only truth there is that the person reading actually had an interpretation. The true meaning of the writing is what the author intended it to mean.

but if this is true, it seems quite obvious that a human would actually not be able to know this single, whole truth, they would only be able to know a part of it. (obvious bible quote about this if you wish).

Yes, it is true that as finite human beings we cannot possible know the full truth of our infinite God. But we CAN know what He Himself has told us!

1. that we only know a part of it, one perspective, as the op states.

Perspective, or opinion, is itself not truth. Perspective can be absolutely wrong. I wasn't arguing for a single all encompassing truth in this discussion, but only that truth EXISTS, which relativism tries to deny be stating that all "personal" truths are equal. No... they are not. Personal truth is not truth if it does not correspond to reality, or real truth.

My stand is simple: truth DOES exist. Therefore relativism is false.

2. that we must work together to know the whole truth. it follows from this that we must be aware that none of us knows it all to be able to work together.

Again, it seems you are talking about one great, all encompassing truth. And so you may be right... My problem with this is that I think there is no way that you would get everyone to agree that even seeking that all encompassing truth was a worthwhile venture. People LIKE having their "personal truths." And they will likely reject a different truth if it disagrees with what they believe to be true. Relativism, it seems to me, is an attempt to allow everyone (especially the person holding on to his "personal truth") to maintain their own personal truths while still disagreeing. "True for you but not for me," is not a thing of good intention, if you really look at it, because what it is really saying is "your truth isn't good enough for me, therefore it is false." But all this is just bandying about OPINIONS. The REAL truth is what is REAL. God exists... or He does not exist... He cannot do both, no matter how much one perceives Him to exist or not exist.

the picture has meaning as long as people get together to try to understand it. if people dont care about the picture, or people dont want to work together then it might have meaning, but it is powerless.

Nope. The picture would still have meaning to the one who created it. Whether the person did a good job at portraying the meaning, or doing so in an aesthetic manner that would cause anyone to take notice, is really irrelevant. The meaning in the painting would still exist. And the painting itself would still be a true thing, taking up space in this universe.

the power of truth is in the willingness of people to work together to find it. i think that the picture analogy helps us towards this.

I wonder if you're idealizing this too much, searching for some utopian goal in it. That's just not going to happen, I'm afraid, because we live in a fallen world. But truth does have power. People here were talking about attrocities and heinous crimes. Looking at such things don't we almost universally feel repulsed? And if someone is NOT repulsed, don't we almost universally see something wrong with that? This is not a inherent survival instinct, because survival instinct cares about the ONE, the one individual, the one tribe that is a part of the individual. There is no reason, as a part of survival instinct, that an individual should care about the death of something that is not a part of him. But humans DO care! I care that there are children starving in parts of this world, even though my family and I are quite well fed, because there is a TRUE understanding, given to me by my Creator, that human life is of value.

also i believe that this is what god wants.

Hmm. Let me put a bug in that for a moment. Wasn't Eve's temptation the search for greater knowledge than what God had already given her?

What I think is happening here is that (1) we have rejected the truth that God has given us.
(2) we have adopted our own form of truth in a manner that suits us.
(3) we search for truth, but only as it appeals to us.
(4) we search for truth, but do not look to the Truth-giver.

Isn't that what Paul wrote in Romans 1?

Romans 1:19-25
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

When we talk about relativism, we are actually talking about man exchanging real truth for personal truth, as it suits him. But to accommodate competing personal truths, or even real truths, relativism says, "well, you can keep that, and I'll keep mine." Actually, it's all self-centeredness, and you're not going to have people as a whole seeking THE truth, because they have exchanged truth for a lie that suits them better.

also the search for truth isnt simply analysis and conclusion. some of the meanings of the picture lead to action, not conclusion.

Erroneous thinking, since actions stem from conclusions.

i believe that this actually has the most meaning. its not just about working together on the same plane of understanding, its about all levels of understanding working together.

The best, I think, we can hope for, in a world of competing points of view jealously held, is that we would CREATE a truth, not find the truth. But creating a truth would not alter the original truth.

The true meaning of a painting is that which the ARTIST put into it.

The true meaning of all of creation is that which GOD put into it.

As finite beings in a fallen world, given to our own sinful intents, the very best we can do is submit to the authority of God and trust Him for the ultimate truth, rather than trying to create our own. But that just ain't gonna happen on a global basis... ESPECIALLY if relativistic thinking holds sway.

(Yikes... this is pretty weighty stuff for an early Friday morning.)

i agree with you, truth does exist. the next step is to ask "in what form does it exist?"

Not in mere interpretation.

the word truth seems to suggest that it could be summed up in words, and lets face it, words could never do justice to the reality or truth of god!

Truth IS. Period.

God said, "I am that I am." God affirmed His ultimate existence, taking very few words to do it. Words are merely the tools we use, and while they may not do justice to a thing, they are for our understanding.

how about saying what is "good" rather than what is "true"?

Because there are as many interpretations of what is "good" as there are of what is "true." This doesn't solve the dilemma at all.

Cheers,
Diana

 

[Cleany]

No, that isn't what I said. Absolute truth and ultimate truth are not the same thing. If I say that I like broccoli, the absolute truth IS that I like broccoli. You might hate broccoli. But that doesn't change the fact that I like it. Still, both facts, liking and hating, are opinions about a thing that it itself and absolute truth... broccoli exists.

The true interpretation of the painting is the meaning that the ARTIST gave it.

When I was in high school, we spent scads of hours talking about what a particular author meant with his writing... now people want to say that the truth of the writing is in whatever way the reader interprets it (deconstructivism). Wrong. The only truth there is that the person reading actually had an interpretation. The true meaning of the writing is what the author intended it to mean.

the argument that i was making was that whatever this absolute truth is, no single person can understand it, only parts of it ...

Yes, it is true that as finite human beings we cannot possible know the full truth of our infinite God. But we CAN know what He Himself has told us!

yes we can know some things that god is saying, but of course that would only be a part of the whole picture.

Perspective, or opinion, is itself not truth. Perspective can be absolutely wrong. I wasn't arguing for a single all encompassing truth in this discussion, but only that truth EXISTS, which relativism tries to deny be stating that all "personal" truths are equal. No... they are not. Personal truth is not truth if it does not correspond to reality, or real truth.

My stand is simple: truth DOES exist. Therefore relativism is false.

i think that you may have missed some of the meaning of the original OP, which wasnt actually arguing that truth doesnt exist at all, rather saying that relativism makes no argument for or against the existance of ultimate truth.

Again, it seems you are talking about one great, all encompassing truth. And so you may be right... My problem with this is that I think there is no way that you would get everyone to agree that even seeking that all encompassing truth was a worthwhile venture. People LIKE having their "personal truths." And they will likely reject a different truth if it disagrees with what they believe to be true. Relativism, it seems to me, is an attempt to allow everyone (especially the person holding on to his "personal truth") to maintain their own personal truths while still disagreeing. "True for you but not for me," is not a thing of good intention, if you really look at it, because what it is really saying is "your truth isn't good enough for me, therefore it is false." But all this is just bandying about OPINIONS. The REAL truth is what is REAL. God exists... or He does not exist... He cannot do both, no matter how much one perceives Him to exist or not exist.

i agree with you. there is objective truth, and not everyone on earth will dedicate themselves to finding that truth.

Nope. The picture would still have meaning to the one who created it. Whether the person did a good job at portraying the meaning, or doing so in an aesthetic manner that would cause anyone to take notice, is really irrelevant. The meaning in the painting would still exist. And the painting itself would still be a true thing, taking up space in this universe.

it is not irrelevant if the artist who drew the picture did it in an attempt to communicate with us!

I wonder if you're idealizing this too much, searching for some utopian goal in it. That's just not going to happen, I'm afraid, because we live in a fallen world. But truth does have power. People here were talking about attrocities and heinous crimes. Looking at such things don't we almost universally feel repulsed? And if someone is NOT repulsed, don't we almost universally see something wrong with that? This is not a inherent survival instinct, because survival instinct cares about the ONE, the one individual, the one tribe that is a part of the individual. There is no reason, as a part of survival instinct, that an individual should care about the death of something that is not a part of him. But humans DO care! I care that there are children starving in parts of this world, even though my family and I are quite well fed, because there is a TRUE understanding, given to me by my Creator, that human life is of value.

i disagree that we live in a "fallen world".

it does not necessarily follow that "survival instinct" is concerned with the individual. it is also concerned with the species, or race, or whatever you want to call it.

i agree that there is a god, as you do, but i dont think that you can prove it by argument!

Hmm. Let me put a bug in that for a moment. Wasn't Eve's temptation the search for greater knowledge than what God had already given her?

What I think is happening here is that (1) we have rejected the truth that God has given us.
(2) we have adopted our own form of truth in a manner that suits us.
(3) we search for truth, but only as it appeals to us.
(4) we search for truth, but do not look to the Truth-giver.

Isn't that what Paul wrote in Romans 1?

Romans 1:19-25
since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

When we talk about relativism, we are actually talking about man exchanging real truth for personal truth, as it suits him. But to accommodate competing personal truths, or even real truths, relativism says, "well, you can keep that, and I'll keep mine." Actually, it's all self-centeredness, and you're not going to have people as a whole seeking THE truth, because they have exchanged truth for a lie that suits them better.

i disagree with your interpretation of genesis.

you seem to be interpreting it as an argument for believing in god, whereas i think it is more a story describing the situation we humans find ourselves in.

again, the op isnt abuot this, its about the fact that relativism doesnt have a position on absolute truth, by definition it cannot!

Erroneous thinking, since actions stem from conclusions.

what like breathing? bleeding? giving birth? falling in love? ill stop there.

The best, I think, we can hope for, in a world of competing points of view jealously held, is that we would CREATE a truth, not find the truth. But creating a truth would not alter the original truth.

The true meaning of a painting is that which the ARTIST put into it.

The true meaning of all of creation is that which GOD put into it.

As finite beings in a fallen world, given to our own sinful intents, the very best we can do is submit to the authority of God and trust Him for the ultimate truth, rather than trying to create our own. But that just ain't gonna happen on a global basis... ESPECIALLY if relativistic thinking holds sway.

(Yikes... this is pretty weighty stuff for an early Friday morning.)

personally i hope that we can live in accordance with the truth, to "be" the truth, so to speak. this is a whole person - mind, body and spirit type of thing. (is this what "in christ" means?) and i personally hope that the whole world will find this one day.

i think that an artist puts purpose into a painting, rather than meaning. as for creation, its meaning is found in its purpose.

whether you like it or not, relativism isnt an argument or a way of thinking, it is simply the fact that people, and their subsequent understanding of life, are all different. i think that it is time christians understood this fact, and incorperated it into how they deliver the gospel.

(Yikes... this is pretty weighty stuff for an early Friday morning.)

ahh yes but we love it don't we?

Not in mere interpretation.

well as people if there is any point in there being an objective reality, then we will want to have some part in it. then the obvious question is how is this done?

Truth IS. Period.

God said, "I am that I am." God affirmed His ultimate existence, taking very few words to do it. Words are merely the tools we use, and while they may not do justice to a thing, they are for our understanding.

then we had be pretty careful about our use of words, and our understanding of them, especially in relation to the truth!

Because there are as many interpretations of what is "good" as there are of what is "true." This doesn't solve the dilemma at all.

Cheers,
Diana

actually that goes against your earlier argument saying that "humans DO care!"

anyway what dilemma?

cheers too