[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 461 KB, 720x540, download (2).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19568392 No.19568392 [Reply] [Original]

>Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true; one might just as well say that there is no language or write that there is no writing. In short, every idea is reduced to a relativity of some sort, whether psychological, historical, or social; but the assertion nullifies itself by the fact that it too presents itself as a psychological, historical, or social relativity.

>The assertion nullifies itself if it is true and by nullifying itself logically proves thereby that it is false; its initial absurdity lies in the implicit claim to be unique in escaping, as if by enchantment, from a relativity that is declared to be the only possibility. The axiom of relativism is that “one can never escape from human subjectivity”; if this is the case, the statement itself possesses no objective value, but falls under its own verdict. It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity.

Was he right?

>> No.19568423

>>19568392
What do you mean “was he right”? He’s making an objectively true statement.

>> No.19568712
File: 104 KB, 1045x545, frijsch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19568712

>>19568392
>was he right
always
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G33mj_KvJgg&

>> No.19568729

Zzzzzz Aristotle already made this point 2000 years ago.

>> No.19569163

>>19568712
that channel is hilariousn

>> No.19569368

>>19569163
it's great
but i can't understand spanish

>> No.19569390
File: 86 KB, 810x837, hs.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
19569390

>>19568392
Where did Haile Selassie write this?

>> No.19569402

>>19568392
Gobbledygook

>> No.19569446

>>19568392
I guess? But what he's critiquing isn't really a position that anyone takes per se.

>> No.19569478

>>19568392
He needs to read Sextus Empiricus

>> No.19569502

>>19569446
>modern people are never relativists or radical social constructivists
hmmm uhhh
lol ok
wow hahah

>> No.19569510

Schuon or lings?

>> No.19569517

>>19569502
Yes

>> No.19569576

>>19569510
both are good
but also philip sherrard if you are christian/perenialist

>> No.19569583

>>19568392
Crap; how do literal generations of traditionalist thinkers get sucked into the trap of believing that before 1900, nobody had heard of the idea that there is a time for every purpose under heaven? That's lucking literally Ecclesiastes 3:1, which is 3,000 years old.

Traditional thinkers of all sorts have simply failed to grapple with the systemic causes of spiritual decay, perhaps with the exception of Tolkien, who realized that the disturbances of technology were the driving factor behind the abandonment of traditional values. What he calls relativism is nothing more than the "we create our own reality" mantra of technology.

>> No.19569612

>>19569583
>how do literal generations of traditionalist thinkers get sucked into the trap of believing that before 1900
who are you referring to? they're aware they're reformulating truthful ''primordial'' ideas not inventing new stuff

>traditional thinkers are saying stuff other trad thinkers have said in the past
thats....the point lol

>> No.19569665

>>19569368
is portuguese retard

>> No.19569750

>>19568392
Remids me of the rather retarded argument you hear that somehow the conception of god in the human mind is evidence of god's existence.

>> No.19569824

>>19568392
Good until this part:
>It is abundantly evident that man can escape subjectivity, for otherwise he would not be man; and the proof of this possibility is that we are able to conceive of both the subjective and the surpassing of the subjective. This subjectivity would not even be conceivable for a man who was totally enclosed in his subjectivity; an animal lives its subjectivity but does not conceive it, for unlike man it does not possess the gift of objectivity.

>> No.19570097

>>19569824
that's a very refined point, but npcs won't understand it until they become self-aware

>> No.19570146

>>19570097
Well thanks for enlightening us bro.

>> No.19570181

>>19570097
>>19569824
Perhaps the way man conceives of "objectivity" is just an extension of subjectivity, i.e. we conceive of reality itself as a subject (God perhaps?) and label it as "objective" because it surpasses our mere human perspective. But does that truly qualify?

>> No.19570588

>>19568392
>Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself.
This was addressed by Nagarjuna before the karmic seeds of tradilarping were even planted. I expected no less from thede retards, considering they never actually engaged with the original texts.

>> No.19570620

>>19568392
>"truth is subjective"
>if truth is subjective, then the statement "truth is subjective" is not objectivelly true
>therefore, truth cannot be subjective
Yeah, sounds correct. He express it in a pedant manner, tho.

>> No.19570634

>>19570620
>pedantic
Fix'd.

>> No.19570665

>>19569368
It's portuguese.

>> No.19570673

>>19568392
>>Relativism reduces every element of absoluteness to relativity while making a completely illogical exception in favor of this reduction itself. Fundamentally it consists in propounding the claim that there is no truth as if this were truth or in declaring it to be absolutely true that there is nothing but the relatively true
I've seen this sort of argument from several places and I've always felt there's something wrong with it but I'm not quite sure how to explain. Maybe it's that these propositions, e.g. "Everything is relative", are not real things but simply descriptors, so there isn't a contradiction if the description does not fit within the set which it describes since the description is not part of the set to begin with. Like it's more of a "gotcha" word game than a refutation of the idea.

>> No.19570715

>>19568392
Relativist trannies, leftoids and post-modern neomarxists seething! Another win for the Trad gang!

>> No.19570728

>>19570715
>literally the most common argument against relativism that even a retarded infant can think of, independently of school of though
>muh, traditionalist win

>> No.19570745

>>19570673
To be honest, I always felt the same when I saw this argument. For me, the biggest problem is how they jump from "if truth is subjective, the statement 'truth is subjective' is subjective" to "therefore, truth cannot be subjective". Logicfags, is this right?

>> No.19570762

>>19570745
Everything is relative is not an absolute statement, since the everythig is considered relative, the statement just means relative=relativre, which is right.

>> No.19570777

>>19570745
The actual syllogism they're using is

Truth is subjective
"Truth is subjective" is truth
Ergo "Truth is subjective" is subjective

But I could just agree and grant that this too is subjective since there are people who have different opinions on the matter.