/sci/ - Science & Math

> I don't understand relativism

>OP thinks his own worldview is absolute

>>1533342
I believe there's two dogs in that picture humping each other. You can't say I'm wrong, since there's no "objective" truth, just different yet equal views!

>>1533406

Facts can be objective. Their significance is subject to interpretation. Alot of fuckwits don't understand the difference, and thus start spouting nonsense about the dangers of moral relativism.

>>1533406
Here, since you seem to have a problem with relativism, let me help you.

> different yet equal views
"Equality" is a value-judgment. As such, it requires a frame of reference from which to make such a judgment. To assert unequivocally that two value judgments are equal requires a reference frame capable of comparing all value judgments. But this is an absolute frame of reference. But relativism suggests there is no such frame (or if there is, it is not discoverable/knowable/provable etc). Therefore this cannot be an accurate summary of relativism.

Enjoy.

>>1533282
the man in the suit is perfectly correct.

>>1533432
10/10, what a cop-out. When in trouble, just redefine words!

>>1533455
> theorems aren't relative to axioms, it's just wishy-washy liberals redefining words
Enjoy your childish, medieval worldview.

>>1533282

No one is a serious relativist these days. They're fucking self-refuting, for crying out loud, logical garbage to entertain.

The post-modern condition isn't really a philosophical thing as much as a sociological; the thing isn't that truth-claims suddenly got threw out, but that they irrelevant and boring for most people these days so they ignore it. Among with other things.

As Foucault said it; it isn't about the truth, but the people claiming to tell the truth that's his subject of study.

>>1533489
I am a "serious relativist." It is not a self-refuting position, except in cases made completely of straw. I tend to look at it mathematically.

Relativist: there are formal systems capable of making judgments (truth, provability, etc). There is no unique meta-system capable of making consistent and complete meta-judgments.
Absolutist: ??

I would love to characterize the absolutist position but frankly I don't understand it at all.

>>1533536
>There is no unique meta-system capable of making consistent and complete meta-judgments.
How can you be claim to know this if you're just a formal system capable of making judgments?

Capatcha: Fuad This

>>1533577
What a beautiful foot in that picture!

>>1533561
I didn't claim to know it. I also don't claim to know if A=A, that x+0=x, and any number of things. These things, assumptions and axioms, are not known, they are asserted.

bump

>my face when he still believes in morality

Believing morality is relative doesn't preclude having your own strong opinions. It's just an acknowledgment that not all moral codes apply universally outside your own culture or experiences

Everything's relative, Einstein proved this 400 years ago.

>>1534973
What's the speed of light relative to?

>>1534326
>my face when you confuse morality with absolute morality

rescued!