Source: Coursera: Link
https://www.coursera.org/learn/relativism/home/info
Relativism by University of California, Irvine
Course Overview: Relativism Unveiled
I. Introduction
Ancient Roots:
Relativism's enduring presence in philosophy.
Interdisciplinary Impact: Influence on anthropology, sociology, critical theory, and literary studies.
Dual Nature: Touted for tolerance but with profound consequences on reality, knowledge, and moral considerations.
II. Key Questions Explored
Perspectival Reality:
Inquiry into whether reality is inherently perspectival or allows contradictory descriptions.
Epistemic Dilemmas:
Examination of how relativism challenges the possibility of knowledge in diverse epistemic systems.
Moral Frameworks:
Analysis of moral permissibility within different ethical systems and its implications for moral truths.
III. Practical Examples
Historical Science Conflicts:
Bellarmine-Galileo dispute as an illustration of relativistic challenges in the history of science.
Everyday Scenarios:
Application of relativistic principles to common situations in daily life.
IV. Target Audience
Philosophy Enthusiasts:
Open to anyone with an interest in philosophy.
Community Leaders:
Strategies for combating extremism in communities.
V. Learning Objectives
Participants will:
Explore Relativism:
Delve into the foundations and manifestations of relativistic thought.
Contemporary Relevance:
Discuss the role of relativism in today's society.
Response Recognition:
Identify common reactions and counterarguments to relativism.
Comparative Analysis:
Contrast various forms of relativism, understanding nuances and distinctions.
Epistemic Insight:
Recognize how epistemic relativism elucidates historical science events and anthropological discoveries.
Personal Perspective Presentation:
Create a presentation expressing a personal stance on a chosen form of relativism.
VI. Transformative Potential
Mindset Shift:
Regardless of skill level, participants can reshape thinking and enhance their lives through philosophical inquiry.
Embark on this intellectual journey to unravel the complexities of relativism, engage in thought-provoking discussions, and gain practical insights applicable to diverse aspects of life.
Course on Relativism: Notes by Annalisa Coliva
I. Introduction to RelativismOrigin: Protagoras of Abdera, 5th century B.C.
Ongoing Relevance: A recurring doctrine throughout history.
II. Varieties of RelativismAlethic Relativism
Derived from the ancient Greek word "alathia" (truth).
Epistemic RelativismFocus on relativism concerning knowledge and justification.
Moral RelativismExamining relativism in the realm of morality.
III. Characteristics of Relativism
Non-AbsolutismDenies universality of truths, knowledge, and values.
DependenceTruth, knowledge, and values are contingent on parameters.
MultiplicityVarious parameters influence truth, knowledge, and values.
IncompatibilityStrong: The same judgment can be true or false in different parameters.
Weak: Judgments may be true in one framework but inexpressible in another.
Equal ValidityOpposite judgments, though incompatible, are equally correct.
Non-NeutralityNo neutral criteria for evaluating conflicting frameworks.
IV. Motivations for RelativismIntractable Disagreement
Response to disagreements in taste, morality, and epistemic norms.
Language and Theory VariationsRelativism arises due to divergent meanings in languages or theories.
Perspectival NatureAll judgments and beliefs are inherently perspectival.
Rejection of Universal NormsAnthropological and historical data support the absence of universally agreed norms.
V. Critique and AlternativesCarol Aven's Perspective
Rejects intractable disagreement as the primary motivator.
Emphasizes divergent meanings in languages and theories.
VI. Moral RelativismPerceived Link with ToleranceMoral relativism associated with tolerance and open-mindedness.
Global vs. Local RelativismGlobal: Truth enforced in any domain is always relative.
Local: Truth and falsity in specific domains are relative to applicable frameworks.
VII. Examples of Local RelativismExploration of prominent instances in the course.
In this course, we will delve into the intricacies of these relativistic perspectives, examining their implications and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses.
The What and Why of Relativism
Baghramian, M. & Coliva, A. (2018). The What and Why of Relativism.
Chapter 1 | The What and Why of Relativism
Introduction
A constant issue in discussions of relativism is the lack of agreement on its definition and characterization. This chapter intends to address the topic in three steps. Section 1 presents a set of key elements common to all instances of relativism, as well as references to existing definitions. Section 2 investigates why some philosophers and non-philosophers find relativism appealing. Section 3 looks into numerous types of relativism to help define the problem's contours.
1. Defining Relativism
Relativism manifests in diverse shapes, yet some conditions are central across various accounts. These include:
Non-absolutism:
Relativism opposes absolutism, universalism, objectivism, monism, invariantism, and realism. Absolutism asserts that some truths or values apply universally, regardless of historical or social conditions.
Dependence:
Relativism posits that a value (x) depends on a parameter (y), such as language or culture. This dependence can constitute or imply a relation of implication between y and x.
Multiplicity:
Relativism assumes a multiplicity of values (x) and parameters (y), citing empirical evidence for diverse belief systems or categorizations.
Incompatibility:
Relativism asserts a non-convergence or genuine incompatibility between values and parameters, leading to weak or strong forms of relativism.
Equal Validity:
Relativism claims the equal validity of conflicting values determined by different parameters, making them metaphysically and epistemically on par.
2. Why Relativism?
Relativism has enduring appeal, owing principally to three motivations:
Overcoming Persistent Disagreement: Relativism emerges as a reaction to intractable conflicts about taste, morality, and epistemic norms. The idea is that relativistic acceptance can overcome flawless conflicts.
Accommodating Difference:
Relativism is motivated by the existence of truths that cannot be embraced together, emphasizing variability in cultural, moral, and epistemic norms.
The Inevitability of Perspectivalism:
Relativism is defended by the conviction that all beliefs are irredeemably perspectival, relying on interpretive schemes and resisting neutral points of view.
3. The Scope of Relativism
Relativism can be global or local, stating that truth is relative across all domains or within specialized regions. Local relativism can occur in a variety of fields, including ethics and taste. The chapter finishes by discussing alethic relativism, epistemic relativism (justification and knowledge), and moral relativism.
Respond to the following:
Do you think that pluralism and tolerance are only compatible with relativism? Why or why not?
Share at least 1 example of faultless disagreement based on your personal experience.
Share at least 1 example of relativism of difference (or of distance) based on your experience
Pluralism and tolerance are not inherently tied to relativism. Pluralism promotes diversity without requiring equal validity, whereas relativism claims that all opinions are equally legitimate. Tolerance can accommodate competing viewpoints without taking a relativistic stance. Example of a perfect disagreement: A friend may despise sushi, whereas I like it. Our different options coexist without being objectively valid or erroneous, exhibiting complete disagreement.
An example of relativism of difference:
Cultural conventions of punctuality differ greatly, indicating relativism of variation. Some cultures expect strict adherence to schedules, while others prefer a more flexible approach. The differences highlight relativism, as neither viewpoint is universally superior.
Denies knowledge: Skepticism
Relativism's stance on knowledge: True (limited to a specific framework or system)
Forms of skepticism and relativism: in local and global forms
Why non-absolutism, dependence, and multiplicity are not enough for relativism: Because values can still be compatible when relativized to a parameter y.
Equal validity claims: A’s and B’s views appear to be incompatible but they are not
Non-neutrality claim: there is no vantage point for assessing a position as true or false
Local relativism concerns: values that are local to a specific culture or community
Global relativism concerns: all areas of discourse or values not local to a specific culture or community
Motivation for relativism: to make sense of the idea that, in some areas of discourse, disagreement seems to be faultless
Relativism of difference (or of distance) claims: certain bodies of truth cannot be embraced together
Perspectivalism's compatibility with objective truth: there is more than one objective truth
Relativism: A Concise Overview
1. Definition of Relativism:
Co-variance Definition:
Truth, falsity, right, wrong, etc., are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment.
Hidden Parameter Definition:
Properties like beauty, morality, justification are relative to a given framework of assessment.
Scope of Relativism:
Global vs. Local Relativism: Concerns values at a broader cultural level or within specific communities.
Strong vs. Weak Relativism: Examines the extent of relativism's impact on truth claims.
2. Reasons for Relativism:
Empirical Claims of Diversity: Recognition of diverse perspectives.
Disagreements and Intractability: Acknowledgment of persistent disputes.
No Neutral Ground: Denial of a framework-independent vantage point.
Underdetermination of Theory: The theory is underdetermined by available data.
Context Dependence: Emphasis on the influence of context.
Principle of Tolerance: Relativism as a stance promoting tolerance.
3. Historical Background:
Debates since Plato: Long history, with ongoing debates.
Analytic vs. Continental Philosophy: Relativism's impact on philosophical methodologies.
4. Varieties of Relativism:
Cultural Relativism: Values vary across cultures.
Conceptual Relativism: Relativity in conceptual frameworks.
Alethic Relativism: Truth is relative.
Epistemic Relativism: Relativity in rationality, logic, and science.
Moral Relativism: Morality varies across contexts.
5. New Relativism:
Individuating Features: Characteristics of modern relativistic views.
Truth Relativism and Personal Taste:
Examination of truth relativism in subjective judgments.
Objections to New Relativism:
Critiques related to assertion, simplicity, and more.
6. Conclusion:
Ongoing Debate:
Despite a long history, defining relativism remains challenging.
Philosophical Impact:
Relativism influences diverse philosophical sub-disciplines.
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
Chapter 2 Summary: Relativising Truth
1. Alethic Relativism:
Overview
Definition:
Truth depends not only on how things are in the world but also on additional parameters like standards of taste, context of assessment, perspectives, or frameworks.
Variability:
Parameters can vary between individuals and groups, leading to conflicting verdicts on truth.
Contrast: Contrasted with objectivism, universalism, and realism about truth.
1.1 Classical Alethic Relativism
Historical Roots: Traces back to Protagoras, but faces challenges of self-refutation.
Protagorean Challenge:
Resolving contradictions by considering expressions as relative to individual perspectives.
1.2 Charge of Self-Refutation and Infinite Regress
Historical Criticisms: Self-excepting fallacy, infinite regress challenges.
Defenses:
Relativists argue against self-contradiction, exploring distinctions and pragmatic considerations.
2. New Truth-Relativism
Recent Development: Arises from analytic philosophy of language.
Context-Dependence:
Truth indexed not only to the context of utterance but also to the context of assessment.
Key Proponents: Kölbel and MacFarlane present nuanced approaches.
2.1 Kölbel's PerspectiveTruth-Conditional Semantics:
Endorses truth-conditional semantics but introduces relative truth for non-objective matters.
Perspective:
Truth is relative to a perspective, allowing for faultless disagreement.
2.2 MacFarlane's Assessment Sensitivity
Context of Assessment: Truth is relativized to a context of assessment, allowing different assessors.
Practice of Assertion:
Relativistic assertoric practice involves commitments, retractions, and justifications.
2.3 Evaluation and CritiqueFaultlessness Challenge:
Critique regarding the adequacy of faultless disagreement in the face of conflicting standards.
Discussion and Debate: Questioning the empirical basis of claims that people avoid discussions in certain areas due to relativism.
This chapter provides an in-depth exploration of alethic relativism, historical challenges, and contemporary developments in new truth-relativism. It introduces key thinkers, their perspectives, and evaluates the coherence of faultless disagreement within the relativistic framework.
Contemporary Alethic Relativism
Please respond to the following questions:
How would you describe the main difference between Protagoras’ alethic relativism and contemporary forms of alethic relativism?
Can contemporary alethic relativism explain disagreement and retraction?
Does contemporary alethic relativism respect disagreement and faultlessness intuitions?
Contemporary Alethic Relativism:
Difference from Protagoras:
Protagoras (Classical Relativism): Truth is relative to individual perspectives, but global relativism faces challenges.
Contemporary Alethic Relativism: Incorporates nuanced frameworks, indexing truth to various contexts beyond individual perspectives. It addresses challenges faced by global relativism.
Disagreement and Retraction:
Explanation by Contemporary Alethic Relativism:
Yes, contemporary forms acknowledge disagreement and retraction. Truth is relative to the context of assessment, allowing for differing standards. Speakers can retract assertions when standards change.
Respect for Disagreement and Faultlessness Intuitions:
Contemporary Alethic Relativism's Stance:
Yes, contemporary forms respect disagreement and faultlessness intuitions. The notion of faultless disagreement is integral, recognizing that conflicting standards lead to genuine disagreements without attributing fault to any party.
Contemporary Alethic Relativism:
Differences with Protagoras:
Protagoras (classical relativism):
Truth varies depending on the perspective, but global relativism faces challenges.
Contemporary Alethic Relativism:
Incorporates advanced mechanisms for determining truth in situations outside individual perspectives. It addresses the challenges raised by global relativism.
Disagreement and Retraction:
Explanation for Contemporary Alethic Relativism:
Yes, current forms acknowledge dissent and reversal. Truth is relevant in the context of assessment, which allows for different standards. When standards change, speakers can retract their statements.
Respect for Disagreement and Sound Intuitions:
Contemporary Alethic Relativism Position:
Yes, contemporary forms value discussion and perfect intuition. The concept of flawless disagreement is critical, which acknowledges that competing rules lead to justifiable conflicts without assigning guilt to any party.
If Everything is Relative:
The statement can be:
True absolutely, making it false.
Only relatively true, requiring non-acceptance.
Both are true absolutely and only relatively true.
2. Everything Only Relatively True:Either:
Only relatively true that everything is relatively true.
Only relatively true that it is only relatively true.
Both.
3. Relatively True Assertions:
What I assert: May be false for you and by my own standards.
May be false for you.
Is true for you too.
4. Max Kölbel’s Relativism - Sushi Claim:
Claim:
Neither true nor false.
Depends on the speaker, true for me, false for you.
5. Kölbel’s Relativism - Changing Minds:
Changing mind: Can say "I was wrong. Sushi is not delicious."
Cannot say "I was wrong. Sushi is not delicious."
6. MacFarlane’s Relativism - Changing Minds:
Changing mind: Can say "I was wrong. Sushi is not delicious."
Cannot say "I was wrong. Sushi is not delicious."
7. MacFarlane’s Relativism - Sushi Claim:Claim:
True (or false) depends on the assessor.
False if said by you.
True if said by me.
8. MacFarlane’s Relativism - Agreement/Disagreement:
Assertion and denial:
Agree.
Disagree.
Disagree if tastes differ.
9. Kölbel’s Relativism Challenge:
Trouble explaining:
Retraction.
10. MacFarlane’s Relativism Challenge: - Trouble explaining: - Retraction.
11. Protagoras’ Relativism Challenge: - Trouble explaining: - Retraction. - Disagreement. - Agreement.
Epistemic Relativism:
Holds that knowledge is possible only within an epistemic framework.
Allows for multiple and incompatible frameworks.
Practice of Double Standards:
Permits assessing the rationality of beliefs in both shared and non-shared epistemic standards.
Underdetermination of Theory by Evidence:
The same evidence can support different hypotheses about its causes.
Confirmation Holism:
This implies you cannot verify a theory one piece at a time.
Galileo/Bellarmine Dispute (Richard Rorty):
Rorty considers it rational.
Inability to Return to Ptolemaic Theory (Richard Rorty):
Linked to the distinction between Science and Religion.
Bone of Contention (Galileo and Bellarmine):
They were disputing over two fundamental epistemic principles: Observation and Revelation.
Consequence of Epistemic Relativism:
Allows criticism if your framework includes fortune-telling.
Incompatible Logics:
Apparently possibly compatible given different domains of application.
Different Notions of Causality:
Possibly compatible due to different senses of "cause."
Persistent Epistemic Disagreement:
Implies probable differences in meaning, not necessarily that both parties are equally right.
Ethical Relativism Consequence:
Your behavior can be morally evaluated only by those who do not share your ethical code.
Replacement Model:
The truth-conditions of “Stealing is wrong” are to be replaced with “According to moral framework M, stealing is wrong.”
Moral Relativism:
Does not entail either moral nihilism or skepticism.
Consequence of Moral Relativism:
Just as the stronger cannot morally evaluate the weaker, so the weaker cannot morally evaluate the stronger.
Replacement Model Impact:
Distort the topic of disagreement among opposite parties to the debate.
Max Kölbel’s Moral Relativism:
Has problems explaining parity.
Max Kölbel’s Moral Relativism:
Has problems explaining first-order disagreement (i.e., disagreement about the ethical point at issue).
Ethical Double Standards:
Are problematical because they may condone atrocities.
Ethical Relativism:
Is problematical because it considers moral progress just like a pragmatic substitution of a given ethical system with a different one, liked by the majority.
Relativity Exclusion:
Ends up licensing contradictions.
Relativity Inclusion (Truth-Conditions):
Ends up not making sense of faultlessness.
Relativity Inclusion (Assessment):
Ends up not making sense of retractions.
Relativism of Difference:
Ends up licensing contradictions.
Relativistic Difference and Intercultural Dialogue:
Incommensurability may impede rather than encourage intercultural interaction, resulting in mutual misunderstanding and an inability to identify common ground.
The significance of disagreement in relativism:
Disagreement is important because it exposes the range of perspectives, emphasizing the necessity for relativism to accommodate and respect opposing opinions, particularly in culturally varied environments.
Tenable Characteristics of Faultless Disagreement
The concept of perfect disagreement is debatable. While some say that it is tenable because it acknowledges other points of view without designating them as incorrect, others struggle to maintain impartiality in the face of competing claims.
The importance of equal validity in relativism:
Equal validity is critical for motivating relativism since it recognizes the legitimacy of various beliefs, prohibiting the imposition of a single standard.
It encourages tolerance and understanding by acknowledging the validity of various cultural and moral perspectives.
Examples of Different Theories:
There are opposing theories in the public discussion of climate change. While standard scientific discourse emphasizes human-caused variables, some skeptics propose alternative theories linking climate variability to natural cycles.
Example of Alternative Logic:
In various Eastern cultures, particularly traditional Chinese philosophy, the term of "yin-yang" refers to a distinct logic. Unlike Western binary thinking, it depicts the interconnectedness and interdependence of seemingly opposing forces, offering a fresh perspective on balance and harmony.
Title: Understanding Epistemic Relativism: A Critical Exploration
Introduction:
Epistemic relativism is a philosophical stance that holds that the truth and justification of knowledge depend on one's perspective or situation. In this presentation, we will delve into the complexities of epistemic relativism, discussing its roots, ramifications, and potential obstacles. Furthermore, I will discuss the virtues and limitations of epistemic relativism.
Defining epistemic relativism:
Epistemic relativism questions the concept of absolute and objective truth. It states that knowledge is not universally valid, but rather depends on the epistemological context in which it is situated. This viewpoint implies that various people or cultures may have distinct, but equally valid, ways of comprehending and justifying knowledge.
The foundations of epistemic relativism:
Cultural variability:
Cultural diversity frequently leads to epistemic relativism, which recognizes that various communities have distinct methods of collecting and validating knowledge.
Historical Context:
Knowledge is viewed as evolving with time, and what was regarded as true in one age may be thought erroneous or outdated in another.
The implications of epistemic relativism:
Cultural Sensitivity:
Epistemic relativism promotes cultural sensitivity and understanding by valuing different points of view.
Open-mindedness:
Embracing epistemic relativism encourages an open-minded approach to various modes of knowing while avoiding ethnocentrism.
Challenges and Critiques:
Normative Concerns:
Critics contend that epistemic relativism might hamper the quest for universal truths, leading to normative issues regarding the validity of specific knowledge assertions.
Navigating Disagreements:
The concept of flawless disagreement is challenged in epistemic relativism because it raises the question of whether opposing beliefs may coexist without one being considered incorrect.
My perspective:
While I see the value of embracing diverse opinions in epistemic relativism, I believe it is critical to establish a balance. Absolute relativism, in my opinion, may impede the advancement of shared knowledge and prevent critical discourse. Adopting a moderate version of relativism promotes cultural variety while maintaining the pursuit of universal truths, so offering a foundation for productive dialogue and intellectual advancement.
Conclusion:
Epistemic relativism provides a distinct perspective on the nature of knowledge, questioning established concepts of objectivity. While it has the potential to increase cultural understanding, managing its obstacles necessitates a strategic approach. My perspective tends toward moderate relativism, which values diversity while being committed to the search for shared truths in our collective quest for knowledge.
Key Points from "The What and Why of Relativism" Epilogue
Relativism, Faultless Disagreement, and Classical Logic:
Challenge:
Classical logic presents a problem for relativism when parties hold incompatible positions without being at fault.
Dialetheists:
Some philosophers accept true contradictions, but this raises questions about why parties would continue to disagree.
Relativism, Faultless Disagreement, and Perspectivalism:
Indexical Approach:
Avoiding contradictions by including hidden indexicals in truth conditions (e.g., "in my opinion").
Challenges: Perspectivalism faces difficulties preserving genuine disagreement, especially regarding the content of assertions.
Relativism of Distance and Multimundialism:
Distance Relativism:
Embraces the idea that subjects can endorse incompatible bodies of truth without direct disagreement.
Challenges:
Explaining why these bodies of truth cannot be embraced together, and the metaphysical implications of multimundialism.
Conclusion on Relativism:
Coherent Formulation: A stable and coherent formulation of relativism, addressing all traditional desiderata, remains elusive.
Optimism:
The historical challenges and attempts to formulate relativism cast doubt on the likelihood of a successful solution.
Alternatives:
The suggestion is made to explore alternative theoretical accounts that address anti-absolutist demands without the pitfalls of relativism.
Epilogue Assessment:
The epilogue concludes with a dubious assessment of relativism's sustainability and suggests researching alternate ways that address anti-absolutist concerns. Classical logic, perspectivalism, and distance relativism all raise issues that highlight the difficulty of developing a comprehensive relativist position.
Source: Coursera: Link given at the top
