Father Matthew, in my opinion, conflates moral truth with physical truth. He uses language sloppily, in my opinion. For instance, I can talk about Unicorns with another person all day long. We can agree completely on what a Unicorn is and forward our discussions. This does not mean the unicorn exists. When he says, at the beginning that we are not talking about the same truth, does not mean that we cannot talk about scientific truths accurately. It just may mean that we cannot talk about ethical truths accuratly. In the second part of his discussion of an outside arbiter - I can agree that is uncomfortable - but that discomfort does not mean that the arbiter necessarily exists. I don't think we need to necessarily be in conflict with another person because we disagree. It seems tolerence is the cure to this conflict. I think he has submitted to a Hobbsean type universe when he claims that we cannot exist outside this conflict. I also disagree that the paradox is within relativity - I wonder if it exists within Christianity and other universalist religions that claim that their concept of the universal arbiter is the correct one and all others should bend to their will while simultaneously preaching toleration. With this said, Please accept no umbrage with this. I absolutely love his attempt to understand it and pretend to have no answers myself. I think Padre is a good man trying to do good things - and that is something I love. I also think we could be friends and love a good lunch now and again.
Do Christians share a common reality? If so why are there thousands of denominations, and hundreds of translations, and millions of interpretations? Christian objectively is not reality. When you add other religions and God beliefs, it gets even worse.
This is all well and good but I should like to point out that the problem feeling accomplishment by destroying relativism is only true relative to someone who already believes that truth is not relative. Not only do we have to accept that the knowledge that truth is not relative is itself relative to any given individual but any given person who believes that truth is not relative only knows that true is not relative in relation, comparison, or proportion to something else. Paradoxically, evidence only matters to someone who already accepts that evidence matters.
I’m not so sure. While I believe there is a degree of congruence among beings, and certainly with a language group, I also think that things are what they are for you.
So who is right? You? Oh, your God tells you what is right. So then we don't need to ask Him. We just ask you. You're always right. What's that? You aren't? Well, we better discuss things and see who has the best argument. You will, because God tells you? And round and round we go. Relatively speaking.
he must live in some reality where everyone disagees on everything if relativism is true. as a relativist its my view that you can basically always find a truth that two people can agree upon, not because morality is objective, but because humans have evolved in a way to, say, prioritise survival over most wants. so if we can agree that survival is good, we can resolve any disagreements we have. or we dont, but at least at that point we understand each other. if morality is objective we would just be arguing over which set of morals is the right one, so saying relativism is bad because we have disagreements is a bad argument. its also a bad argument because, as another commenter noted, we already have disagreements all the time. like what color should the car we buy be? we resolve that disagreement or else we come to a standstill where we agree to disagree and there is just nothing to change the other's opinion. saying "well my moral code is objectively correct so youre just wrong" isnt any better than that
Truth isn't about opinion- glass is half empty or half full-it's about the fact that there's water in the glass. Once you see that, you start to accept others' opinions and understand that their experience up until that point has led them to perceive the glass as either half empty or half full. A change of opinion can sometimes be a lifesaving revelation, and that can only happen if we understand that we all are relative beings living in an objective reality. So instead of trying to reinforce and enforce our opinion/ideology, we should try to find the truth
This guy is clearly intelligent and seems decent enough but this is so nonsensical it makes me wonder if the editing is not giving the full context. This should be titled "Professor gives false dichotomy for 4 Minutes!".
When societys try to operate on a 'multi truth', or relative truth model, all you end up with is endless disputes, factions, and eventually, growing civil unrest, lawlessness, and then finally wars...Here in Britain we seem to be progressing down this path, very sad. A nation divided WILL, eventually fall
Consider this proposition. Objective truth exists in theory, but nobody gets to claim exclusive authority over what it is. Not to ban conjecture, but we must be humble and offer our conjectures persuasively for consideration. In doing so, we can use language of presenting our beliefs as facts, maxims or theorems--asking us to do language convolutions to emphasize the uncertainty of all knowledge is unreasonable.
I mean, is he essentially saying truth is not relative because… woo boy, wouldn’t that be scary? I’m not a relativist myself, but this wasn’t exactly the most philosophically eloquent counter argument.
People resist objective reality because they cannot imagine the basis. So they accept relativity despite it being irrational, to his point. Why doesn't anyone describe the basis for objective reality?
In other words. This journey and human experience is a personal one. There are many paths to Nirvanas, heaven, the under world, bliss or whatever you think it should be. All is mind and the universe is mental.
The horrifying reality of this message is that anyone who watches it will create their own interpretation, and use this message to continue justifying doing so in other aspects of their lives.
1. Is the art of argumentation not built on a power-struggle in relation to conviction of one's truth? 2. This is a great analogous explanation of International Relations through the critical lens in relation to power-struggle between international actors
this dosent disprove relativism it shows us how importnat objectivity is even if it is logically without any emotional bias (ie care for human dignity and whatnot) incorrect
How I put it is that there is only one truth: THE truth. If you don’t accept THE truth, then you’re just willingly trapping yourself in a bubble of lies.
And ofcourse in a world with billions of people and millions of experiences, explanations, ideas and cultures it's the truth you've stumbled upon that is the THE truth, ofcourse!
LOL the history of religion is imposing its reality( or death) on different peoples. Are you completely blind to that? You are doing it right now, "there is only one way to understand reality and I just happen to be a professor of that reality."
The only ways to "refute" relativism: - "Kill would considered valid and life as a society would be, in general, impossible". That doesn't have anything to do with the validity of the thesis. If it's a harsh truth, it's still a truth. - "It contradicts itself". It does only if considered as "there isn't any absolute truth", while it should be enunciated as "there isn't aby absolute truth in philosophy, sciencie... since everything requires arbitrary axioms to conclude in a determines thesis, and this axioms can be denied without contradiction unless they are logical tautologies or contradictions". This metaphilosophical (and not philosophical) thesis does only require to accept no contradiction principle (if you don't accept it, then everything can be true actually and the point remains in fact) and a couple of definitions, so yeah, relativism (the skeptical branch of relativism, more correctly, since this point comes from skepticism) is not only consistent but also the truth. If you want to consider some other "truths" besides logical tautologies, fine, but you'll always have to consider your thesis is only a necessary truth under your axioms, under other axioms it could be false.
There’s a difference between realising reality is multiple and understanding its bad effects on the human experience. So your argument against a whole thought movement is based on a single part of it? How have you destroyed anything? You just demonstrated how we need to find points in common and adapt to other so the relativity of reality doesn’t crush us lmao
This argument is entirely predicated on zero sum reasoning, and only reflects on the 'reality' which exists outside the human experience. Part of reality is also the human experience of that external reality. In fact personal intimacy is the place where humanity enters the realm reality, right at the point where we share our experience of whatever is happening with each other. This is not a zero sum game, this professor is incorrect. We do not have to have the same experience internally because we are sensing the same external stimulation. That's flawed on it's face.
I love how you have to imagine people you disagree with being angry and of "lower brain quality" to compensate for your inability to critically engage them.
@@qwerty9797 you can’t critically engage someone who doesn’t accept objective truth. It’s the foundation of human cohesiveness and if relativism is your belief, debate is a pointless exercise.
@@qwerty9797 objective truth is the foundation of human cohesion. There is no critical engagement of someone who believes in relativity as debate is a pointless exercise.
@@josephwinston7643 How do you arrive at that objective truth, genius? For the better part of human existence, people believed the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Perhaps you still hold onto that belief. Similarly, ancient Greeks and Romans believed women had a 'wandering womb' that caused all health issues. Just because certain ideas form the bedrock of a society does not make them truths. There must be space for different experiences, perspectives, and ways of thinking. That's how new discoveries happen. The 'truth,' or as I prefer to call it, 'knowledge,' is ever evolving. This 'my way or the highway' approach is childish and anti-progress. But sure, you stick to insulting and evading dialogue.
We already do have our own realities though. That’s always how it’s been. We don’t speak the same language as each other even when we seemingly agree on definitions, we actually don’t.
