Relativism

Why do people here hate relativism so much? My understanding of it is not that "there's no right and wrong, so you can't criticize anything", like many people seem to imply; rather, it's basically the idea that every point of view has a chance of being valid, but they don't all have the same likelihood of being correct. So, while this does mean that, yes, there's no absolute truth and nobody can be 100% sure of anything, in practice, the concepts of right, wrong, good, and bad are still applicable in our daily lives.

What do you think? Am I missing something? Is my understanting of relativism completely backwards?

inb4 are you sure we can't be sure of anything?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_function
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability_distribution
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

We are overwhelmingly pro-relativism here, there are some Holla Forums shitposters that plague the place but that's it.

See for a great discussion

Relativism? I mean depends on the degree of it.

If anything, it's the right who absolutely despises relativism.

Why? I can't really say.

If "morality" and "tradition" don't matter, then their whole ideology would crumble.

I guess I could say I'm a nihilist in the sense that no meaning-as in justification for performing actions-is objectively extractible from the universe.

Mainly I just see people having preferences, and I see morality as being a method of conflict resolution between opposing preferences, i.e. 2,000 people's will to feed themselves outweigh your desire for a yacht, so you aren't morally obligated to one as highly.

Maybe in full democratic communism we will have a kind of "opinions warfare" where people argue over what to dedicate productive capacity to. So there will be a kind of "democratic relativism".

I think it's interesting to think about.

This

So (((relativism))) is an attack of 'tradition' and 'morality'? Thought as much. This is why some people hate it, along with the entire cadre of (((post-modernism))), (((deconstructionism))) and the anti-rationality, anti-western strand that runs through them all, of which relativism is the cornerstone.

Because "I'm right and you are wrong and that's all there is to it. Thinking about nuance makes me uncomfortable REEEEEEEE"

Good to know that was just a wrong impression of the people on the board.


What do you mean, exactly?


I mostly agree with that. Does that make me a nihilist?


But why would relativism be to blame about that? It seems a pretty rationalist idea to me – since it's a direct implication of the fact that our senses can be wrong and nobody is knowledgeable about everything, basically.

Well, the liberal cunts who use relativism to excuse non-western fascism use disagree with you. They think it's exactly that.

The people want simple truths. The world is too complex for the human brain.

This. The best we can do is understand the world better than we used to, and try to understand why other people do what they do. If there are definitive answers, they are probably beyond our grasp.

No, the problem is that the world isn't complex enough.

no the problem is that the world has no clear active agent to communicate with

But the Subject is able to have access to the Absolute, so the problem of Objects in the world having an active agency with each other is a moot one because there are no Objects, only extensions of subjectivity.

Because it opens to door to the spooky notion that some Priest with his 2000 infallible word of god is as qualified to be hard about on the origins of the universe when we should have long since grown out of such shit. Relativism excuses ignorance or can at least be used to shield certain notions from rigorous scrutiny.

Go Subject yourself to the Absolute metaphysical pleasure of being fucked in the ass by a suitably large Object, you Young Hegelian fuccboi.

t. garl margs

Enlightenment values? Pretty sure the enlightenment would be disgusted at the regressive nature of Islam.

An aside, why do some lefties hate the enlightenment?

what the hell happened to the post I replied to?

Relativism is A. Okay, it's just that the fact that the will of the individual conflicts with that of the herd.

"Everything is simple, it's people who complicate things".

Relativism is in its very concept false. Bayesianism (muh probabilities of x being true) is a retarded methodology. Unless you already know the truth, how in the hell can you even make claims about the probability of some x being true?

If I hit you in the side of the head with a blunt rock repeatedly, you will fall down and stop making bothersome noise. Regardless of what a rock and you might turn out to actually be.

I think we can take that as truth and work from there.

...

Bayesianism is about assigning probabilities to unknowns as much as knowns, that's why I mentioned it makes no sense since you have to know the fact of the end results in order to make a real probability calculation. You're an idiot, m8.

You've no idea how spam filters work, do you?

...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Likelihood_function
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posterior_probability_distribution
Quit pretending to know what you're talking about.


en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations

They only.hate relativism because they cant respond to it

Because its the only viewpoint that makes logical sense, but that's not good enough for Christian Reactionaries and Aristotle Larpers because their whole world view is built on absolute truthes being the core of their worldview

These absolute truths just als happen to be the ones they personally hold. What a coincidence :)

Tell me, what is the probability that materialism is true?

What empirically quantifiable evidence do you have to give me that materialism is true?

'they' can't respond to it because like so much lefty theory, it is dependent of esoteric re-imaginings of words and reality. Rational empiricism is the single greatest tool we have for understanding and predicting natural/physical/material concepts. Deal with it.

Your question makes no sense.

That's certainly not the traditional definition of relativism. Relativists claim these statements cannot be considered ever to be true or false in an absolute way. That they all hinge on the subjectivity of each individual. Thus, in this framework, all criticism becomes equivalent to you expressing disapproval of other person's views, instead of being a way to correct them in any way. Because of this, no rational discussion on these views is possible and is fruitful only in the sense that you get to know what other people approve/disapprove of.

So it just exists to make some people feel better about being wrong?

The concept of wrong or right does not make sense in that framework, unless you're talking about something like "this is right for me", which is the same as saying "I like this".

In the field of physical/material science there very much is right and wrong. Is this not what we're talking about?

Depends on what you apply relativism too.
You do find people arguing for relativism in the realm of hard sciences, but it is rarer.

So it's largely about the humanities then? What's the connection/difference between relativism and anti-positivism then? Just two words for the same idea?

holy fuck why are there so many shit threads. it's like summerfag city in here.

relativism does not imply no absolute truth, only that it is unknowable

...