/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14706411]

I think my philosophy professor is actually retarded

We’re talking about the sophists and he says that relativism can’t be true because the statement “there are no universal truths” logically cannot be true because if it was true then it would be a universal truth

Isn’t this just a rhetorical trick?? I argue that he’s deliberately ignoring what relativists actually argue because it would be much harder to disprove.

[Anonymous No.14706422]

your prof is entirely correct

[Anonymous No.14706427]

>>14706411
This statement is false.

[Anonymous No.14706428]

Relativist pseuds btfo!

[Anonymous No.14706429]

>>14706411
>Isn’t this just a rhetorical trick?? I argue that he’s deliberately ignoring what relativists actually argue because it would be much harder to disprove.
no that's just you coping

[Anonymous No.14706430]

>>14706411
But what does your professor think about coffee

[Anonymous No.14706436]

>>14706422
Relativists don’t argue shit like the gravitational constant. They just say morals are relative to the culture you were raised in. My prof is being deliberately obtuse.

[Anonymous No.14706443]

perspectivism is what youre looking for

[Anonymous No.14706453]

>>14706411
"all statements are relative except this one" is quite funny

[Anonymous No.14706456]

>>14706436
the distinction between cultural and moral relativism might help here. the latter is utterly retarded. the former is defensible.

[Anonymous No.14706457]

>>14706453
kek

[Anonymous No.14706466]

>>14706456
Moral relativism is not retarded. Even Aristotle was a moral relativist.

[Anonymous No.14706469]

>>14706443
Idek man who fucking argues that 2+2 is not 4? Relativism deals with morals. Which are absolutely relative.

[Anonymous No.14706477]

>>14706466
would need evidence from the ethics to support that, but regardless, his wiser teacher, plato, certainly was not

[Anonymous No.14706487]

>>14706466
>Even Aristotle was a moral relativist.
what?
no he wasn't

[Anonymous No.14706492]

>>14706466
Aristotle fucked up when he dismissed the theory of forms. There is more than the world of senses.

[Anonymous No.14706495]

>>14706411
you're dumb

[Anonymous No.14706498]

>>14706495
this

[Anonymous No.14706501]

>>14706492
proof?

[Anonymous No.14706502]

why think about gay philosophy when you can think about boob?

[Anonymous No.14706507]

>>14706411
i would delete this if i were you op... very embarrassing

[Anonymous No.14706510]

>>14706502
seems kinda gay to sit around thinking about women like some faggot instead of hanging out with your bros and pursuing the form of the beautiful

[Anonymous No.14706511]

How retarded can you be? When saying "there are no universal truths" the rebuke saying that "that needs to be a universal truth to hold true its meaning" is exactly the way out of the problem by the sentence saying "there are no universal truths".
It is right about being wrong.

[Anonymous No.14706512]

>>14706411
This is called the formalist argument. Its inane, because, for example, that problem has been deftly avoided by the likes of Derrida and others by not reconstructing systematic explanations with which to account for the partocularoties of their project. (For Derrida, this is to dwell in Hegel's negation without creating the 'synthetic' part of a dialectic.) Language can be open and contradictory, and clearly is, without it having to be formulated in some pseudo-analytical 'logical' remark along the lines of 'there are no universal truths' anyway. Even of your professor is pretending language is a system of logic, he's formulating a sentence that isn't used by alleged relativists, and even formal logical systems can't be proven true within their own parameters as detailed by Tarski, Godel etc, which renders this even more moot. As such, not admitting the so-called universal truth 'there are no universal truths' into play doesn't prove universal truths, either. In fact, it leaves the question more than open (maybe that's his point?)

[Anonymous No.14706518]

>>14706502
>t. coooooooom

[Anonymous No.14706528]

>>14706411
somebody's forgetting the descriptive vs. normative distinction

descriptively, of course moral relativism is true - it's as obvious as anything else than many cultures differ in their particular moral judgements

but, it doesn't follow from that observation that what's "actually" right/wrong is relative to culture

(inb4 you pseud-out about the "actually" - there's actually more in common morally-speaking between cultures than it actually seems like at first... for example, most cultures find those behaviors that encourage societal flourishing to be "good." so, the interesting philosophical question should focus on that observation instead)

[Anonymous No.14706531]

>>14706411
He sounds dense. That's clearly a mischaracterization of relativism, but let's suppose it's accurate. Why couldn't the relativist make such a statement while accepting the relativity of that view?

[Anonymous No.14706538]

>>14706510
I don't have any bros, anon

[Anonymous No.14706546]

>>14706538
you've come to the right place then, friend

[Anonymous No.14706547]

>>14706411
>>14706436
He was repeating Aristotles negative argument for the principle of non-contradiction. The relativism of the Sophists was a claim about absolute knowledge, not merely moral relativism, and so it is a valid argument.

[Anonymous No.14706551]

>>14706492
Please read Aristotle's metaphysics.

[Anonymous No.14706557]

>>14706511
this.

[Anonymous No.14706563]

>>14706531
>Why couldn't the relativist make such a statement while accepting the relativity of that view?
Because it literally makes no sense. It's like saying "this sentence is false", it's utterly meaningless and not even wrong.

[Anonymous No.14706574]

>>14706563
Also,
>accepting the relativty
Notice how you're sneaking in the assumption that there are no universal truths in saying this. You failed to actually get outside of the metric of truth and falsity, but you're posturing as if you were.

[Anonymous No.14706577]

Retards disagree with him
Midwits agree with him
Patricians disagree with him but are thankful for the refinements one must make in the face of such an argument

[Anonymous No.14706584]

>>14706501
The third man argument is like Zeno's paradox, in that it only arises without an understanding of infinities. You can view a given form as the point of convergence or the asymptote of the infinite hierarchy posited by the argument. Unless you think that each successive third man is less and less like the previous, and that therefore the series diverges. But then, the hierarchy could not be built at all if that were the case.

[Anonymous No.14706585]

>>14706531
>Why couldn't the relativist make such a statement while accepting the relativity of that view?
the same reason why materialists can't make any statements at all

[Anonymous No.14706593]

>>14706411
What's his example of a universal truth? Is his only example a statement that if actually true negates universal truth? After all, for it to actually be a universal truth it would have to be true, which means there truly wouldn't be universal truths. This doesn't show a universal truth; it, instead, reveals an unresolvable contradiction in language's ability to express truth.

Maybe there is some way out of this problem by making a distinction between a statement's validity and its truth, I dunno.

[Anonymous No.14706600]

>>14706512
>formal logical systems can't be proven true within their own parameters as detailed by Tarski, Godel

You are correct. Even if the professor considers language to have an underlying logical framework (disputed by nearly all continentals and even among ordinary language philosiphers in the anglosphere), he clearly never read about Tarski's undefinability theorem, his theory of truth and Gödel's incompleteness theorems (all for higher order logic only, but that clearly applies here).
Maybe he even doesn't get the distinction between meta- and object language.
This cheap gotcha with a primitive variation of the liar paradox, only reveals him to be an uneducated midwit.

[Anonymous No.14706621]

>>14706600
Reality isn't a formal system, midwit. God I hate how abused the incompleteness theorems are by non-mathematicians.

[Anonymous No.14706685]

>>14706621
Regardless of ontological status, reality is literally isomorphic to a formal system on the condition that we first accept some form of even loose determinism as a basic assumption. Given that the issue of determinism is a logical guess about the nature of reality and seemingly impossible to prove or disprove, I think that’s reason enough to consider the incompleteness theorems’ possible applicability to reality itself

[Anonymous No.14706704]

>>14706685
Mmm, there is already an experiment that empirically violates causality, the quantum eraser. Reality is pretty broken at root, and that's without getting into the hard problem of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.14706732]

>>14706621
First of all, I'm a mathematician (Master's degree) and I read both Gödel’s and Tarski’s original work (along that of Church and Turing).
Secondly, I and the quoted poster both agreed that it is highly doubtful, whether language can be considered to have a formal substrate. The point was, that even if this unlikely assumption holds, the prof's point still wouldn't follow.

But I bet, you retard didn't even bother to thoroughly read my post. Just mentioning the notion of a „formal system“ triggered you.

[Anonymous No.14706746]

>>14706704
>Mmm, there is already an experiment that empirically violates causality, the quantum eraser. Reality is pretty broken at root, and that's without getting into the hard problem of consciousness.
How does this follow, in any way?
All it proves is that the systems in question are insufficient for describing physical reality - nothing more.

[Anonymous No.14706747]

>>14706411
I had a professor that said the same thing, and I responded by saying that no absolute truth is an absolute truth. He said my argument is invalid because muh language is a social construct.

[Anonymous No.14706758]

>>14706746
It does prove reality is non-deterministic.

[Anonymous No.14706776]

who is this Terrifying Tittensau

[Anonymous No.14706778]

>>14706758
Our lack of understanding regarding quantum reality doesn't prove that reality is non-deterministic

[Anonymous No.14706790]

>>14706704
>he still thinks the scientific method is able/meant to make objective universal claims
>he still thinks physics is an axiomatic system of inferences and logic like mathematics and not a process of approximation and experimentation to compare the relative accuracy of predictive models within the limited intervals of scope in time and space that humans are capable of measuring
>he still thinks the hard problem of consciousness is an unsolved conundrum within science and not a permanent feature of the scientific method's inherent limitations
And you had the audacity to call others midwits

[Anonymous No.14706798]

>>14706778
How could reality turn out to be deterministic with the quantum eraser being a thing?

[Anonymous No.14706809]

>>14706758
You are wrong. It just shows that at least one assumption of these 3 is wrong: Locality, causality or determinism.
There are ontologically deterministic interpretations of QM, which still can't be excluded on these grounds (Bohmian, Many-worlds etc...)

[Anonymous No.14706812]

>>14706411
Yeah, Op i would fuck her. I would probably feel like shit afterwards but i'd do it. Why'd you ask?

[Anonymous No.14706816]

>>14706790
I didn't call anyone a midwit, that was someone else, and if anything, I believe there are many things firmly outside the scope of science and logic.

[Anonymous No.14706821]

How would you know a universal moral truth if you heard one?

[Anonymous No.14706833]

>>14706798
You can never prove the inexistence of deterministic exogenous variables influencing any seemingly random activity

[Anonymous No.14708149]

>>14706411
Dems some round mounds

[Anonymous No.14708203]

>>14706411
do you go to school in edmonton alberta

[Anonymous No.14708264]

He his syllogism is non-circular. Yours is circular. Truth isn't defined singularly by non-contradiction however. This is partly the reason for the linguistic turn in mid twencen philosophy. I don't think your professor is retarded, I think he knows this, is testing you, and by coming here you have partly failed by outsourcing your struggle to hentai addicts. You likely will want to look in to both the philosophy of logic and the philosophy of language, although this problem of finding a ground or foundation to logic has been going on for a long time and you will find people addressing it in a variety of different ways from a variety of different view points.

[Anonymous No.14708273]

>>14706411
Charli's so pretty. I love her.

[Anonymous No.14708276]

>>14706422
>>14706427
>>14706429
>>14706436
>>14706443
>>14706453
Ok, how about, "Everything is relative, except for the statement, Everything is relative"

[Anonymous No.14708375]

>>14708276
That's an absolute statement as well. So you need to make exceptions for 2 stuff now, but then you must make exception for the statement with the two exceptions and so on. In the end you would have infinite exceptions.

[Anonymous No.14708385]

>>14708273
ILH2

[Anonymous No.14708388]

>>14708276
Tldr complete relativism is truly convenience end exceptions.

[Anonymous No.14708599]

>>14708375
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Anonymous No.14709903]

>>14706584
sorry I think you got me confused with someone who considers mental masturbation as proof, forms are just mental images

[Anonymous No.14709911]

There's one universal truth, and that truth is: there is one universal truth.

Anti-relativists who rely on the law of non-contradiction are now eternally btfo.

[Anonymous No.14709913]

>>14709903
Cavecuck

[Anonymous No.14709918]

>>14706411
your professor just btfo'd every atheist with a single sentence.. and you're calling him retarded?

OP kys

[Anonymous No.14710033]

>>14706469
2+2 does not equal 4 you tedious fool. How many times do we have to do this? Numbers don't exist. There is no such thing as '1', or '2', or even '4'.

[Anonymous No.14710075]

>>14706600
>Even if the professor considers language to have an underlying logical framework (disputed by nearly all continentals and even among ordinary language philosiphers in the anglosphere)
And why is that?

[Anonymous No.14710079]

>>14709911
The number of universals truths will never change

Retard eternally btfo

[Anonymous No.14710090]

>>14709911
What use is it to know there is one universal truth, if all that truth is is that it is itself universal?

[Simon Magus !!B6w9tJAyfF8 No.14710819]

>>14706510
All my friends are women and I've slept with most of them

[Anonymous No.14710863]

>>14708276
so not everything is relative

[Anonymous No.14710963]

>>14706518
t. thoonker
>i gotta THOONK
>let me grab this Kant tome i need to THOOOOONK a little bit
>gotta have my THOONKS

[Anonymous No.14711940]

>>14706411
You’re retarded professor is right

[Anonymous No.14712117]

>>14706790
good post but completely asymmetric response, you destroyed him

[Anonymous No.14712121]

>>14706538
haha nice picture, fren, thanks so much for sharing it!!

[Anonymous No.14712183]

>>14706411
So far we have:
>Universal truth exists
Further substantiated by: >>14708276
in which:
>Not everything is relative

Next.

[Anonymous No.14712199]

>>14706436
>Relativists don’t argue shit like the gravitational constant.
Yeah they do. That's why they are morons.

[Anonymous No.14712208]

>>14706469
>Relativism deals with morals. Which are absolutely relative.
Only according to your culture. In most cultures around the world, morals are considered absolute and not relative.

[Anonymous No.14712227]

>>14706512
>This is called the formalist argument.
WTF? No, it isn't.

>Its inane, because, for example, that problem has been deftly avoided by the likes of Derrida
Cringe.

>even formal logical systems can't be proven true within their own parameters as detailed by Tarski, Godel etc
Lmao. False.

[Anonymous No.14712232]

>>14706411
This only shows the limitations of logic and that language doesn't defer to anything but itself.

[Anonymous No.14712244]

>>14706600
That's not what Tarski's undefinability theorem is about, pseud.

[Anonymous No.14712262]

>>14706563
>>14706574
You have to think of it like a koan. In order to liberate yourself from such binary thinking you need to speak in contradictory terms.

[Anonymous No.14712269]

>>14706411
This only shows the limitations of logic and that language doesn't defer to anything but itself. It is a freshman argument really.

[Anonymous No.14712272]

>>14706758
>It does prove reality is non-deterministic.
Wrong.

>It just shows that at least one assumption of these 3 is wrong: Locality, causality or determinism.
What the Bell test results show is that entanglement is a nonlocal phenomenon. It has nothing to say about determinism.