late night inspiring-but-likely-crap idea filter
June 29, 2007 2:46 AM Subscribe
If relativism and absolutism had a one night stand, would their illegitimate child be infinite truth?
(Moral) relativism and absolutism both seem to offer appealing and necessary qualities. While absolutism offers the comforting notions that there are plain truths, and rights and wrongs, relativism defers to the equally compelling feeling that our judgment of accuracy or morality in even the simplest of situations can become irreversibly clouded.
One idea that appeals to me both from a theoretical-linguistic perspective and a less formal, philosophical/psychological-gut perspective is that infinitely many true things can be said (or thought--ignoring the distinction for now). I was educated by generative linguists, and I believe I could force them to admit that language's supposed infinite creativity would imply there are infinitely many true statements within any given language. Furthermore, I believe this idea goes a long way toward explaining how people understand and interact with the world.
Suppose we accept that infinitely many true statements can be made about the world.
Does this notion, if we accept it axiomatically, provide us with a way of reconciling relativism and absolutism, leaving us with the appealing aspects of each? The retort to the absolutists seems most philosophically rigorous: sure, we accept that there are absolute truths, but if we can force your hand to admit that there are infinitely many, the game goes from being about simply defining or listing those truths, to understanding how and why it is we go about selecting from among them. The retort to the relativists is more nascent and perhaps does not require this "axiom," but rather more basic linguistic / philosophical axioms that are used in deriving it: musn't utterances involving, say, first-person beliefs, presuppose absolute truth?
What would the idea's implications be for theories of rational information exchange or communication? How might rational communicators go about selecting their utterances from among a (very) large set of possible true statements?
Does this notion offer an appealing way of understanding what it is that people do with their lives--i.e., something along the lines of the human condition? Mathematicians are turned on by the kind of statements about the world that math makes, so they surround themselves with mathematical truths. Same goes for lawyers, artists, businesspeople, and so on. In this vein, I often feel that I (and other people) hold to truths passionately and then simply abandon them for equally passionately held new ones when they have stopped working or are no longer doing it for me. If my choice of truths is capricious anyway, is this maybe not as condemnable as it sounds at first?
I ask all this because I think the saddest people that I know find what I'll label here a "stupid truth" and then sort of get stuck on it, refusing to let it be just because they sense that it's true. I want to slap them and tell them to move on, to just choose the truths that work for them. But I want to do so on firm philosophical ground so that I don't feel like Dr. Phil or some other such inspirational quote snake oil salesman. Hive mind: can it be done?
(Moral) relativism and absolutism both seem to offer appealing and necessary qualities. While absolutism offers the comforting notions that there are plain truths, and rights and wrongs, relativism defers to the equally compelling feeling that our judgment of accuracy or morality in even the simplest of situations can become irreversibly clouded.
One idea that appeals to me both from a theoretical-linguistic perspective and a less formal, philosophical/psychological-gut perspective is that infinitely many true things can be said (or thought--ignoring the distinction for now). I was educated by generative linguists, and I believe I could force them to admit that language's supposed infinite creativity would imply there are infinitely many true statements within any given language. Furthermore, I believe this idea goes a long way toward explaining how people understand and interact with the world.
Suppose we accept that infinitely many true statements can be made about the world.
Does this notion, if we accept it axiomatically, provide us with a way of reconciling relativism and absolutism, leaving us with the appealing aspects of each? The retort to the absolutists seems most philosophically rigorous: sure, we accept that there are absolute truths, but if we can force your hand to admit that there are infinitely many, the game goes from being about simply defining or listing those truths, to understanding how and why it is we go about selecting from among them. The retort to the relativists is more nascent and perhaps does not require this "axiom," but rather more basic linguistic / philosophical axioms that are used in deriving it: musn't utterances involving, say, first-person beliefs, presuppose absolute truth?
What would the idea's implications be for theories of rational information exchange or communication? How might rational communicators go about selecting their utterances from among a (very) large set of possible true statements?
Does this notion offer an appealing way of understanding what it is that people do with their lives--i.e., something along the lines of the human condition? Mathematicians are turned on by the kind of statements about the world that math makes, so they surround themselves with mathematical truths. Same goes for lawyers, artists, businesspeople, and so on. In this vein, I often feel that I (and other people) hold to truths passionately and then simply abandon them for equally passionately held new ones when they have stopped working or are no longer doing it for me. If my choice of truths is capricious anyway, is this maybe not as condemnable as it sounds at first?
I ask all this because I think the saddest people that I know find what I'll label here a "stupid truth" and then sort of get stuck on it, refusing to let it be just because they sense that it's true. I want to slap them and tell them to move on, to just choose the truths that work for them. But I want to do so on firm philosophical ground so that I don't feel like Dr. Phil or some other such inspirational quote snake oil salesman. Hive mind: can it be done?
This post was deleted for the following reason: This kind of broad philosophical brainstorming isn't solving a problem, it's chatfilter.
It's pretty easy to suppose that a language has infinitely many true statements if it has at least one: let S1 be a true statement. Now let S2 = "S1 is true", S3 = "S2 is true", etc. I don't see how this is supposed to have any bearing on absolutism or relativism; relativism would argue that there aren't any objectively "true" statements. So if you accept that there are infinitely many, or even one, you're already choosing sides.
And exactly what is it that you're accepting "axiomatically"? That there are infinitely many statements that some people will call "true"? That there is an objective meaning of "true", and infinitely many statements have that property, regardless of whether individual people would call them "true"? And what exactly is a "statement", anyway? Do they exist on their own, or do people have to utter them? Are their semantics defined only by the actual words used, or are they informed by what the speaker thinks the words mean?
This whole idea sounds very confused and unclear. Words like "axiom" are usually applied to formal mathematical languages, not human ones, so it's not at all clear what you're trying to say.
And about "choosing the truths that work for them": can you give a concrete example of what you mean? It can be dangerous to just choose attractive "truths" to believe in: people convince themselves that they're good businessmen, for example, and then lose all kinds of money because they don't actually bother to find out anything about business. And, of course, the "stupid truths" have already been chosen, in some sense. I think how you choose truths is the operative concern.
Not to mention that having "firm philosophical ground" seems to contradict your message a little bit: "Hey, you should exercise more personal control over what you believe. I know, because these famous people said so!"
posted by equalpants at 3:48 AM on June 29, 2007
And exactly what is it that you're accepting "axiomatically"? That there are infinitely many statements that some people will call "true"? That there is an objective meaning of "true", and infinitely many statements have that property, regardless of whether individual people would call them "true"? And what exactly is a "statement", anyway? Do they exist on their own, or do people have to utter them? Are their semantics defined only by the actual words used, or are they informed by what the speaker thinks the words mean?
This whole idea sounds very confused and unclear. Words like "axiom" are usually applied to formal mathematical languages, not human ones, so it's not at all clear what you're trying to say.
And about "choosing the truths that work for them": can you give a concrete example of what you mean? It can be dangerous to just choose attractive "truths" to believe in: people convince themselves that they're good businessmen, for example, and then lose all kinds of money because they don't actually bother to find out anything about business. And, of course, the "stupid truths" have already been chosen, in some sense. I think how you choose truths is the operative concern.
Not to mention that having "firm philosophical ground" seems to contradict your message a little bit: "Hey, you should exercise more personal control over what you believe. I know, because these famous people said so!"
posted by equalpants at 3:48 AM on June 29, 2007
I'm a notorious simpleton, but surely it's non-controversial, if you accept any concept of truth, to say that a language can have infinitely many true statements. Relativism, I'd have thought, is concerned with whether there are any untrue statements - ie, whether you accept any concept of truth in the first place.
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:00 AM on June 29, 2007
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 4:00 AM on June 29, 2007
There are an infinite number of truths, because the world is (perceptually) continuous. IOW, if it is wrong to shoot me, there are an infinite number of places on my body towards which it would be wrong to fire a pistol. If a ball will fall here, it will fall anywhere that is like here. Note, every continuous truth is bounded by constraints.
Absolutism can thus absorb infinite truths as per its boundry conditions. Of course, things always get fuzzy at boundries; absolutism always has to struggle with that.
Relativism is different. It recognizes boundry conditions, but says that we can't ascribe superiority or inferiority to either side of the boundry.
The merger of the two is something along the lines of -- there are multiple, contradictory systems of right and wrong that are each nonetheless valid, compared to a large number of other systems that are overwhelmingly wrong. In other words, modern politics.
posted by effugas at 4:06 AM on June 29, 2007
Absolutism can thus absorb infinite truths as per its boundry conditions. Of course, things always get fuzzy at boundries; absolutism always has to struggle with that.
Relativism is different. It recognizes boundry conditions, but says that we can't ascribe superiority or inferiority to either side of the boundry.
The merger of the two is something along the lines of -- there are multiple, contradictory systems of right and wrong that are each nonetheless valid, compared to a large number of other systems that are overwhelmingly wrong. In other words, modern politics.
posted by effugas at 4:06 AM on June 29, 2007
the problem with your question is that relativism and absolutism are not opposites--the relativist is absolute in their acceptance of multiple truths--which is, in it's own way, a form of absolutism. the person who believes in multiple truths is just as absolute as the one that accepts only one truth.
that said, i can see what you're asking anyway. using your definition and assumptions, combining the two just doesn't mesh. if we apply this question to hegel's dialectic using the absolutist as the thesis and the relativist as the antithesis, the resulting synthesis is a paradox: the result is neither absolute or relative--the fundamental points of both are rendered obsolete.
the nature of your question indicates to me that you consider yourself a relativist--which probably makes you look down upon those you consider absolutist. when you begin label someone's belief a 'stupid truth,' you are applying your own moral judgment to their truth, rather then recognizing that there may be truths out there that you do not know or accept. so in answer to your initial question, look in the mirror: you are the product of a combination of the two.
posted by lester at 4:58 AM on June 29, 2007
that said, i can see what you're asking anyway. using your definition and assumptions, combining the two just doesn't mesh. if we apply this question to hegel's dialectic using the absolutist as the thesis and the relativist as the antithesis, the resulting synthesis is a paradox: the result is neither absolute or relative--the fundamental points of both are rendered obsolete.
the nature of your question indicates to me that you consider yourself a relativist--which probably makes you look down upon those you consider absolutist. when you begin label someone's belief a 'stupid truth,' you are applying your own moral judgment to their truth, rather then recognizing that there may be truths out there that you do not know or accept. so in answer to your initial question, look in the mirror: you are the product of a combination of the two.
posted by lester at 4:58 AM on June 29, 2007
Since it seems like you have a practical interest in this: steps to take in refuting an irrational belief.
posted by teleskiving at 5:55 AM on June 29, 2007
posted by teleskiving at 5:55 AM on June 29, 2007
"And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals."
--Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet
posted by hermitosis at 6:14 AM on June 29, 2007
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself, like a lotus of countless petals."
--Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet
posted by hermitosis at 6:14 AM on June 29, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
I can think of two useful meanings:
1. Starting with the assumption that a material world exists, a "truth" is some statement that accurately describes part of that world. Example: it is true that if you release a ball (on Earth), it will fall to the ground. It is not true that it will float.
2. Given a symbolic system, a "truth" is some way you can push that systems symbols around without breaking the rules of the system. Examples: it is true that Oompa Loompas live in Willy Wonka's factory; It is true that you can move a bishop diagonally on a chess board; It is true that 1 + 1 = 2.
Are you using either of these definitions or some other one?
If you ARE using one of my definitions, I don't understand what you mean by selecting amongst truths. Even if there are infinitely many true statements about the world, it's not like they're all lined up on a shelf and we can survey them all and pick them. The way to cure cancer is... Hmm. I think I'll pick that one.
Once I do accept a truth, I've accepted it (unless, later, someone points out an error that makes me realize that, in fact, it never was a truth). I don't necessarily think about it all the time, but I've still accepted it. And there are some truth I don't care about, e.g. truths about auto-mechanics or football. But beyond that, I don't get what you're saying about selecting.
I think the saddest people that I know find what I'll label here a "stupid truth" and then sort of get stuck on it, refusing to let it be just because they sense that it's true. I want to slap them and tell them to move on, to just choose the truths that work for them.
Okay, so I sense it's true that I have ten dollars in my bank account. I'm stuck on that truth, because it really sucks. I don't know how I'm going to pay my rent. What would "work for me" would be having $1000 dollars in my account. Are you saying I should just believe the $1000 truth? I can't. It's not a truth. I know it's false.
I do agree with you that "utterances involving, say, first-person beliefs, presuppose absolute truth?" If someone says, "I believe in God," it is probably true that they BELIEVE in God. This goes back to my second definition of truth. People generally obey the rules when they push symbols around inside their heads.
posted by grumblebee at 3:46 AM on June 29, 2007