Only in as much as I am a relativist. That is, he recognized the absolute truth that all existences, values, morals, and beliefs are relative. He then used this absolute truth as a basis for uncovering other more interesting and profound absolute truths.David;
Would you describe Nietzsche as a relativist?
David Quinn wrote:Average,
It isn't a case of my playing a "you too game", because I don't share your belief that truths are relativistic. I recognize that truths cut across all frames of reference, by definition. That is what makes them true.DQ: Dave Toast is right in saying that you are wanting it both ways. You are wanting your beliefs to be both absolute and relative at the same time.
For example, you are offering the assertions that "there is no logical basis for primary values" and "the desire for complete rationality is irrational" as though they were absolute facts. That is the only way these assertions can have the power to undermine the credibility of other frames of reference which differ from your own.
If your assertions really were relativistic statements that merely apply to your own frame of reference, then you would have no basis to apply them outside of this. By their very nature, they would lack the power to undermine any other frame of reference.
Yet here you are on this thread completely abandoning this principle. You are trying to apply your own relativistic truths to other people's frames of reference as though they were not relativistic truths at all. That is, you are applying them as though they were absolute truths.
And then, just to compound the duplicity, you subsequently deny that such activity has ever taken place at all!
A: Don't play the "you too game", it does not apply here. I do not pretend that my assertions are absolutes, I have claimed over and over that they depend on my values.
My concern in this discussion is showing that the philosophy of relativism is self-contradictory in nature and cannot be meaningfully sustained. It is impossible to sustain it because it depends on defeating every other point of view through the use of absolutes, as I demonstrated above.
Deep down, you do indeed believe that your values are absolute - at least subconsciously. That is why you are arguing with me.
How can I begin to do that with someone who claims that he doesn't believe in absolute truths? It would be a meaningless exercise.If you disagree with my assertions, please explain, show me how "there is no logical basis for primary values" is false.
and
"the desire for complete rationality is irrational" is false.
As your philosophy of relativism dictates, these two statements can, at best, only be proven to be false within your own particular frame of reference, one that I don't share.
In essence, what you are saying to me is, "David, you should arbitrarily abandon your frame of reference and adopt mine." That's the sole extent of your philosophizing. Because you strive to avoid recognizing the principle of absolute truth, things like reason and proof no longer come into it.
I can to anyone who recognizes the principle of absolute truth.You can't answer this demand though, and you know it.
While all this is true, it no longer has any meaning for the person who practices reason and abandons everything else. Such a person differs fundamentally from the Fisherman. Such a person says, "I do not know what I want to become. I will simply follow reason wherever it may go."You can reason about things after you have your basic irrational desire, but you can't reason yourself into it your basic primary desires.
For example.
Someone desires to be a Fisherman, so its rational for him to desire to learn how to fish, to understand fish, ocean patterns etc.
But why ought he desire to be a Fisherman? If that is his basic primary value, then he has no logical reason for it -its just what he wants. If he wants to be a Fisherman because it makes him happy. Then Happiness is his primary value - but there is no logical necessity for him to be Happy, there is no reason why he ought to be Happy. As long as you hit the primary desire, you will see it has no rational basis, its just a karmic disposition - like Dan said.
-
Indeed such a person has made a random and irrational choice, he might as well say 'I will follow the bible wherever it may go' - which is baseless.Such a person says, "I do not know what I want to become. I will simply follow reason wherever it may go."
Every point of view is necessary in that it is caused to be (there are no "why" or moral necessities other than within the framework of certain POVs). Points of view are what consciounsess is. The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using logic.Do you believe that there is no “why†(no intent, no value to you or others), but only necessity to your p-o-v?
Dan Rowden wrote:Clyde,
Every point of view is necessary in that it is caused to be (there are no "why" or moral necessities other than within the framework of certain POVs). Points of view are what consciounsess is. The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using logic.Do you believe that there is no “why†(no intent, no value to you or others), but only necessity to your p-o-v?
well, consider this as altering your question clyde :Dan Rowden wrote:Clyde,
Every point of view is necessary in that it is caused to be (there are no "why" or moral necessities other than within the framework of certain POVs). Points of view are what consciounsess is. The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using logic.Do you believe that there is no “why†(no intent, no value to you or others), but only necessity to your p-o-v?
Dan;Dan Rowden wrote:Every point of view is necessary in that it is caused to be (there are no "why" or moral necessities other than within the framework of certain POVs). Points of view are what consciounsess is. The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using logic.
As Dave Toast pointed out, you are continuing to make category errors. It is like arguing that the rationality of the scientific method is suspect because the scientists themselves have the irrational desire to boost their egos and enhance their reputations through science. In reality, the two have nothing to do with each other.This has nothing to do with relativism or my perspective. It has everything to do with your philosophy and a critical internal conflict it faces. It is much like a man who desires to be completely faithful, adhere strictly to faith, yet he has reasoned himself into that position about why he ought to be faithful through a thought out valid syllogism. His foundation is reason, not faith, yet his whole philosophy advocates pure faith above all else. This man, in a way is like you, a walking contradiction.
Very well, you concede the argument by virtue of the fact that you can not reason yourself into your irrational values -- into your primary desires. You can not maintain a completely rational philosophy because you can not logically demonstrate why one ought to have it without appealing to irrational desires - so your foundation is made out of marshmallows and sand. There is no more "you too game" here, its just you following what you believe to be reasonable into a particular direction you desire, a desire you have no reasons for.
The initial choice to follow reason might be random and irrational - in the sense that an ignorant person is motivated by egotism and doesn't really know whether following reason will actually lead anywhere. But once the decision is made, and once a person becomes entirely rational in their thinking, the relevance of his initial choice disappears.DQ: Such a person says, "I do not know what I want to become. I will simply follow reason wherever it may go."
A: Indeed such a person has made a random and irrational choice, he might as well say 'I will follow the bible wherever it may go' - which is baseless.
Agreed. That would be a very irrational attempt to justify the following of X.(note: the desire for X does not justify the desire for X - following X does not justify following X - this would be circular in all cases)
Except when he realizes his philosophy demands absolute rationality, yet his primary desire has no rational basis. :PDavid Quinn wrote:
The fact that a person might seek his own personal happiness in philosophic truth doesn't have any bearing on the rationality or validity of that philosophic truth.
The practice of reason doesn't need any rational justification, for it is a rational activity by definition. It certainly doesn't need to be justified on the grounds of our own motivations.
-
What do you mean by "language"?average wrote:Dan Rowden wrote:Clyde,
Every point of view is necessary in that it is caused to be (there are no "why" or moral necessities other than within the framework of certain POVs). Points of view are what consciounsess is. The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using logic.Do you believe that there is no “why†(no intent, no value to you or others), but only necessity to your p-o-v?
The view that language is the only way to truth is true by definition. Tell me what truth is without using language.
That's right. There's no such thing as "ultimately superior". This, however, doesn't mean anything in practical terms.clyde wrote:If, as you say, all p-o-v arise due to causes and conditions (and I’m not arguing that this is not the case) and hence “[e]very point of view is necessaryâ€, then one may fairly argue that one p-o-v is more beneficial than another in this or that way, but there is no justification for holding one p-o-v as ultimately superior as all p-o-v arise due to causes and conditions;
It's not about holding other POVs in contempt, it's about acting consistently with one's own POV, which may, or may not, require the destruction of other POVs. When you value sanity and wisdom you necessarily devalue delusion. Your very existence makes this necessary as your entire life is about getting rid of ignorance. Values are creative and destructive at the same time. It's just how things are.nor is there value in holding those who have different, but “necessary†p-o-v in contempt as they, like you, hold the p-o-v due to causes and conditions.
No there aren't. You'll find this is impossible unless the operating definition of "wisdom" in those cases is "ignorance". Perhaps you could explain such a POV to me....Regarding, “The view that logic is the only way to truth is true by definition.†That is yet another p-o-v and since, “by definition†of this p-o-v “logic is the only way to truthâ€, how can I possibly argue with that, except to note that there are other p-o-v which do not “by definition†hold that “logic is the only way to truthâ€.
What you're missing is that the person who becomes perfectly rational and enlightened no longer has any irrational desires or motivations. The expansion of his rationality has undermined the irrationality that had previously existed in him. As such, your accusation doesn't apply to him.DQ: The fact that a person might seek his own personal happiness in philosophic truth doesn't have any bearing on the rationality or validity of that philosophic truth.
A: Except when he realizes his philosophy demands absolute rationality, yet his primary desire has no rational basis. :P
Which is what I am accusing your position and philosophy of.
That's not true. A person can have good reasons for following reason, even when he is ignorant. For example, he might see, with good reason, that developing his sanity and rationality would be far more conducive to his long-term happiness than wallowing mindlessly in irrationality.DQ: The practice of reason doesn't need any rational justification, for it is a rational activity by definition. It certainly doesn't need to be justified on the grounds of our own motivations.
A: The practice of reason is not what I'm referring to, of course its reasonable to be reasonable! Yes, by definition. This is a straw-man argument though, what I asked was why one ought to value reason? There is no reason for having this desire :)
This is like arguing that if a bird cannot fly while he is a chick in the egg, he cannot hope to fly when he breaks out of it.And within the framework of a philosophy that demands complete rationality, the desire to begin it has no rational basis, so the philosophy can not be maintained.
Dan;Dan Rowden wrote:No there aren't [other ways to truth]. You'll find this is impossible unless the operating definition of "wisdom" in those cases is "ignorance". Perhaps you could explain such a POV to me....
If that is the case, then reason is not his primary value. His primary value for his system of thought would be the attainment of long-term happiness - which then becomes irrational for it has no logical basis. Do you follow?That's not true. A person can have good reasons for following reason, even when he is ignorant. For example, he might see, with good reason, that developing his sanity and rationality would be far more conducive to his long-term happiness than wallowing mindlessly in irrationality.
No, not really. Because the motivation and desire must always be present in order for the person to maintain their path and philosophy, otherwise they could would just ignore their philosophy and become a fisherman or a pimp.This is like arguing that if a bird cannot fly while he is a chick in the egg, he cannot hope to fly when he breaks out of it.
It is the end which counts. If the end is complete rationality, the beginning no longer matters.
Isn't that what Quinn just said, that motivation and desire would stop being there? And yeah, I guess that would mean they could just become a fisherman or a pimp. One without desire left of course.average wrote: Because the motivation and desire must always be present in order for the person to maintain their path and philosophy, otherwise they could would just ignore their philosophy and become a fisherman or a pimp.
There is, but you're not listening to me. A person starting off will necessarily be choosing reason out of an irrational desire, since he is still an irrational being at that point in time. He hasn't yet reaped the benefits of practicing reason over a long period of time.DQ: That's not true. A person can have good reasons for following reason, even when he is ignorant. For example, he might see, with good reason, that developing his sanity and rationality would be far more conducive to his long-term happiness than wallowing mindlessly in irrationality.
A: If that is the case, then reason is not his primary value. His primary value for his system of thought would be the attainment of long-term happiness - which then becomes irrational for it has no logical basis. Do you follow?
And if his system of thought advocates complete rationality he must still somehow deal with his primary irrational desire and the fact that it always has to be present for him to maintain his philosophy.
There is no way around it.
Again, this ignores the realities of long-term growth. A sage no more has to maintain his motivation to be rational than an oak tree has to maintain its motivation to remain an oak. His will to truth and rationality has literally become the central part of who he is. It is now in his nature.DQ: This is like arguing that if a bird cannot fly while he is a chick in the egg, he cannot hope to fly when he breaks out of it.
It is the end which counts. If the end is complete rationality, the beginning no longer matters.
A: No, not really. Because the motivation and desire must always be present in order for the person to maintain their path and philosophy, otherwise they could would just ignore their philosophy and become a fisherman or a pimp.
