reply
- Feature
- Like
Sad thing is, things like this only come under searing public scrutiny after some epic disaster. Generally I think society does better to teach the child to stay out of the cookie jar rather than building a brick wall around the cookie jar but in some cases, especially where monopolistic competition comes into play and its so-called adults leading the charge, one sadly has to do just that.
reply
I agree to an extent. Ideas which influence many are not all equal and should by no means be treated as such. However, ideas that affect only oneself are absolutely equal. If a person chooses to believe one thing in contradiction to some social construct, it is completely within their right to make their own informed decision on the matter.
- Feature
- Like
I agree to an extent. Ideas which influence many are not all equal and should by no means be treated as such. However, ideas that affect only oneself are absolutely equal. If a person chooses to believe one thing in contradiction to some social construct, it is completely within their right to make their own informed decision on the matter.
Informed does not necessarily mean well read. After all, the philosophers who came up with the terms and ideologies that we use today did just that; they thought them up. Most philosophical concepts relate to one's perception of the world. Well, this is a very personal thing, and cannot be written down in a book and applied to the masses. Key features will likely remain, but perception is very individual.
Of course, the whole point of this website, I believe, is to topple intellectual relativism and create a 'sandbox' where all opinions can be heard. Will they all be good ideas? No. Will they all be good opinions? Yes.
reply
- Feature
- Like
Indeed. This idea is especially harmful in the media's political coverage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfHD36sWQBo&feature=related
reply
I agree.
- Feature
- Like
I agree.
Although, with moral relativism, it has been made into something sinister, it did not begin that way. Ellen Willis puts it best:
"In its original literal sense, "moral relativism" is simply moral complexity. That is, anyone who agrees that stealing a loaf of bread to feed one's children is not the moral equivalent of, say, shoplifting a dress for the fun of it, is a relativist of sorts. But in recent years, conservatives bent on reinstating an essentially religious vocabulary of absolute good and evil as the only legitimate framework for discussing social values have redefined "relative" as "arbitrary." That conflation has been reinforced by social theorists and advocates of identity politics who argue that there is no universal morality, only the value systems of particular cultures and power structures."
reply
This is how I understand "relativism" in general: "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and contentious form is moral relativism.
- Feature
- Like
This is how I understand "relativism" in general: "Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context. There are many forms of relativism which vary in their degree of controversy.[2] The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture (cf. cultural relativism). Another widespread and contentious form is moral relativism.
Some relativists such as Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations claim that humans can understand and evaluate beliefs and behaviors only in terms of their historical or cultural context."
Now, in much simpler terms, for me anyway, it means that there are no "absolute" truths..for /everybody/..that "truth" is relative to the perception of the individual. IDK about "intellectual relativism" . IMHO, /all/ ideas do not have "equal merit" or necessarily "deserve respect" , but then, that's relative to me, I suppose.
Opinions are like belly buttons..everybody has one. They are not, though, entitled to thier own facts.
reply
- Feature
- Like
