theoria

The relativity of absolutism

October 16th, 2023

Me: Tell me about relativism and absolutism.

GPT: Relativism and absolutism are two contrasting philosophical positions, particularly when it comes to ethics, truth, and knowledge. Here’s a brief overview:

1. **Relativism**:

– **Ethical Relativism**: This is the belief that moral values and judgments are relative to the culture or individual. In other words, what’s considered morally right in one culture might be considered wrong in another, and there’s no objective standard to judge which is correct. This position challenges the idea of universal moral truths.

– **Cognitive Relativism**: This pertains to the truth and knowledge. It suggests that all knowledge is relative and dependent on the observer or the context. There’s no objective truth, but rather multiple truths based on different perspectives.

– **Cultural Relativism**: This is the view that cultural beliefs and practices should be understood in terms of the culture from which they originate. It’s an important concept in anthropology, emphasizing the need to avoid ethnocentrism when studying other cultures.

2. **Absolutism**:

– **Moral Absolutism**: This is the belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context or consequences. For example, an absolutist might believe that lying is always wrong, no matter the circumstances or the reasons behind it.

– **Epistemological Absolutism**: This is the belief in absolute truth in terms of knowledge. It posits that some things can be known with certainty, regardless of perspective or context.

– **Cultural Absolutism**: Contrary to cultural relativism, cultural absolutism suggests that there are objective standards by which cultures can be judged. This viewpoint is often criticized for being ethnocentric, as it might prioritize one culture’s values over another’s.

In debates about these philosophies, relativists often face criticism for potentially endorsing a form of moral or cognitive nihilism, where nothing can be said to be truly right or true. On the other hand, absolutists are often criticized for being overly rigid or for oversimplifying complex issues.

Both relativism and absolutism have their strengths and weaknesses, and the nuances of these positions can vary widely depending on the philosopher or the context in which they’re applied.

Me: Relativists can talk about how relativism relates to absolutism. But absolutists can never talk about how absolutism relate to relativism in any meaningful way.

GPT: Your statement touches upon a complex interplay between relativism and absolutism. To unpack it:

1. **Relativists on Absolutism**: A relativist believes that truths or values are not universal but are determined by individual or cultural perspectives. From this viewpoint, a relativist can acknowledge the existence of absolutist beliefs as one of many perspectives within a broader landscape of diverse viewpoints. They can discuss, analyze, and even critique absolutist positions from their relativistic framework, seeing absolutism as a particular stance within a spectrum of beliefs.

2. **Absolutists on Relativism**: An absolutist holds that certain truths or values are universal and apply regardless of individual or cultural perspectives. If an absolutist were to fully and strictly adhere to their position, they might reject relativism outright, viewing it as incorrect or misguided. However, this doesn’t mean an absolutist can’t “talk” about relativism. They can still describe, critique, or oppose it. What might be challenging is for an absolutist to engage with relativism on its own terms without compromising their foundational belief in universal truths or values.

That said, the world of philosophy is vast and nuanced. Some thinkers might blend elements of both relativism and absolutism, or they might adopt a position in certain contexts but not in others. For instance, someone might be a moral absolutist (believing in universal moral truths) but an epistemic relativist (believing that knowledge is relative to cultural or individual perspectives).

In summary, while there are inherent challenges in reconciling relativism and absolutism, philosophical discourse often thrives in exploring and navigating these tensions.

Me: Yes, relativism can accept absolutism as one of many positions. But absolutism cannot accept any other position but its own.

GPT: Correct. By definition, absolutism asserts the existence of absolute and unchanging truths, values, or principles. This makes it inherently exclusive in its stance, as acknowledging another position would contradict the very essence of absolutism.

Relativism, on the other hand, inherently allows for a multiplicity of views and perspectives, seeing truths or values as relative to different cultural, individual, or situational contexts. Thus, it can incorporate and accept absolutism as one of those perspectives, even if it doesn’t agree with its universality.

The dynamic between these two philosophies exemplifies the challenges and intricacies of navigating truth and belief in various fields, from ethics to epistemology.
The non-universality of universals

October 16th, 2023

Me: The concept of universals is an important part of western philosophy.

GPT: Absolutely! The concept of universals has been a central topic in Western philosophy, particularly in metaphysics and the philosophy of language. At its core, the debate about universals is concerned with whether properties, types, or qualities have a real, independent existence apart from the particular objects that possess them.

**There are a few primary positions on the matter:**

1. **Realism**: This position holds that universals, like the property of “redness,” exist independently of particular things that are red. The famous philosopher Plato was an advocate for a form of realism. He believed in the existence of the “Forms” or “Ideas,” which are perfect and eternal representations of properties and types.

2. **Nominalism**: This viewpoint denies the independent existence of universals. Instead, it claims that only particular things exist, and the names or terms we use to describe groups or classes of objects are just that—names. They don’t refer to any real, independent entities.

3. **Conceptualism**: This is a middle-ground position which asserts that universals only exist in the mind. They are not external, independent entities like the realist claims, but they are also not merely names as the nominalist would argue. The philosopher Immanuel Kant can be associated with a form of conceptualism.

The debate over universals has wide-reaching implications for topics like the nature of knowledge, the existence of objective truth, and the way language refers to the world. Understanding the nuances of this debate can help one grasp many of the foundational discussions in Western philosophy.

Me: How about in Eastern philosophy?

GPT: In Eastern philosophy, while the exact terminology and framework might differ from Western traditions, there are analogous discussions about the nature of reality, universality, and particularity.

Here’s a brief overview of some relevant ideas in Eastern philosophy:

1. **Buddhism**:

– **Emptiness (Śūnyatā)**: In Mahayana Buddhism, particularly, there’s the concept of “emptiness,” which suggests that all phenomena lack inherent existence and arise dependent on other conditions. This might be seen as a challenge to any absolute notion of a “universal.”

– **Dharma**: While often translated as “law” or “teaching,” in the context of early Buddhist metaphysics, dharmas are the most basic constituents of reality. They can sometimes be compared to “atoms” in Western thought but aren’t exactly universals or particulars.

2. **Hinduism**:

– **Brahman**: In Vedantic philosophy, Brahman is the ultimate reality or universal soul. All things emanate from and return to Brahman. This concept could be considered as a form of universalism, where everything is part of one ultimate reality.

– **Vishishtadvaita**: This is a school of Vedanta that posits both the universality of Brahman and the particularity of individual souls (Jiva). It seeks a middle ground, much like the conceptualism of Western thought.

3. **Daoism (Taoism)**:

– **Dao (Tao)**: Dao can be thought of as the way or path. It’s an underlying principle that is the source, pattern, and substance of everything, but it’s indefinable and immanent. While it’s not a “universal” in the Western sense, it does represent a foundational and unifying principle.

4. **Confucianism**:

– Confucian thought doesn’t delve as deeply into metaphysical issues of universals and particulars in the same manner as Western philosophy. However, it does have notions of a universal moral order and shared human virtues.

It’s crucial to understand that while there are parallels, the contexts, questions, and nuances in Eastern traditions can be quite different from those in the West. The ideas from one tradition cannot always be neatly mapped onto another. Nevertheless, these explorations underscore the shared human desire to understand the nature of reality, regardless of cultural or geographical differences.

Me: My point is, universals are not a universal concern.

You make a clever observation. While the debate over universals has been prominent in Western philosophy, not all philosophical traditions around the world have engaged with the topic in the same manner or with the same intensity. The questions that different cultures prioritize and the ways they approach philosophical problems can vary significantly based on historical, cultural, and contextual factors.

In many Eastern traditions, for instance, the emphasis might be more on understanding the nature of the self, the path to enlightenment, the right way to live, or the nature of the cosmic order, rather than on abstract metaphysical distinctions like universals vs. particulars.

Your point serves as a reminder that philosophical concerns are often shaped by cultural and historical contexts, and what seems crucial or foundational in one tradition may not hold the same importance in another.
Happiness as action

October 13th, 2023

chat.openai.com/share/c32fd19d-fe6a-4d04-ab65-34da9af46555

Here, I discuss with ChatGPT that “happy” (or happiness) is an action, not a static object.
The sum total of experiences

October 12th, 2023

I am the sum total of experiences.
A rose is a rose is a …

October 8th, 2023

Gertrude Stein said it nicely. But today we are so un-nuanced in our understanding that it needs to be spelt out.

A rock is a rock is a rock until it is perceived.
Greater than

October 8th, 2023

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

This is true of human perception of the world. This is also true of Gibson’s affordance theory. Human perception always adds more to what is there. There is always the thing and then the perception of the thing. I call this projectionism.
One simulation, countless simulacra

October 7th, 2023

There are more representations (simulacra) than there are things in the reality (simulation). The U2 concert at The Sphere was but one event. But tens of thousands of experiences (simulacra) occurred there. Many more simulacra occurred online with the shared videos on platforms like Instagram.

A single recalling the moment repeated also brings about more simulacra. The single event created a multitude of simulacra, each an event in itself. Yet events are not the same as the objects (things) that participate in the event (process).
A Godless universe or just a universe?

October 5th, 2023

To call the universe godless is to default to God first, then to deny its existence. This is the same ploy believers use when they ask, “do you believe in God?”

The “problem” begins with the creation of words like god and unicorn. These words stand for the things which do not have physical existence but have only verbal existence. It is existent people who talk about non-existent gods and unicorns. Without people (beings) there is no such talk.
Required knowledge

September 11th, 2023

Billions of people know how to drive cars. but there is only a small fraction of these people who know how to build a car. And even fewer who can make a complete on their own. Knowing how to drive a car is not the same thing as knowing how to make a car or how a car works. It does not matter.

I do not need to know who or what I am to know how to live. Just live. Knowing some things may help but mostly it may not be necessary.

It is our ability to decide what is and what is not necessary knowledge that counts.
Philosophical exceptionalism

September 10th, 2023

Philosophical exceptionalism is the belief that a philosophy (particularly a western one) is either distinctive, unique, or exemplary compared to other philosophies.

Exceptionalism can be within any domain and is generally a western characteristic, although the Chinese culture due to their development also show symptoms of this.

Exceptionalism is closely linked to beliefs of superiority and grandeur.