Is relativism dead?

Lactating Shark

And was it killed by 9/11?

I dont know, obviously, but it seemed to be in the air in the 90's, much less so these days. Probably for the best. Just wondering if anyone has a more informed opinion then mine?

DadaKopf

You mean as an intellectual fashion or a metaphysical (or whatever) standpoint that's supposed to be 'True' whether it's fashionable or not?

I think if anything, with recent spectacular political events, current trends if anything convey an interest in reconciling the conflict between objectivist and relativist viewpoints - the relationship between facts and values, structure and action.

People, I think, now take it for granted that there's a world out there that's partly always-already there because there's a world we encounter that constrains our actions, but we also understand that our world is also a socially constructed world in which different cultures and systems of understanding, based on intersubjectivity among human beings and the environment, in relation to the 'objective' world, have developed over eons.

I'd agree with you that the zeitgeist, in terms of the so-called Clash of Civilisations looks as if politics is moving in the direction of universalism - Christian fundamentalists, neocons, Islamic fundamentalists, Islamists all claiming to have insights into the 'TRUE' nature of the universe, with claims to the one True morality. The political reality of this, though, is that these universalist ideologies exist within a particular social context and are used to justify particularist political-economic objectives, usually motivated by some kind of power pay-off. In the West, neo-conservatism used to justify the objectives of a straw man of a universalist amorality called economism.

I also think that mid-to-late twentieth century developments in linguistic and semiotic theory points toward the arbitrary/contingent nature of meaning and understanding in the social universe, and advances in knowledge of the material world points towards constraints on those contingencies as far as human action goes. So there's the bridge the academic community seems to be pushing. Philosophy of science seems to be moving in the direction of instrumentalism: our knowledge ebbs and flows, it doesn't keep on accruing, because we tend to accept only what's useful to us in achieving our pre-set goals.

While fashion and current affairs makes it look like relativism is waning, I personally think it's because conservative groups in various cultures around the world are concerned that relativism (let's say philosophical liberalism) is undermining their power bases, or changing the world in a direction they don't feel comfortable in.

Lactating Shark

DadaKopf wrote:

You mean as an intellectual fashion or a metaphysical (or whatever) standpoint that's supposed to be 'True' whether it's fashionable or not? .

Mostly the latter but both sides are interesting and somewhat related I suppose.

DadaKopf wrote:

I think if anything, with recent spectacular political events, current trends if anything convey an interest in reconciling the conflict between objectivist and relativist viewpoints - the relationship between facts and values, structure and action. .

I agree that there is some interest in reconciling, but is it really possible? Each view seems to refute the other, dont you think?

Interesting reply though, thanks.

SkepticOne

Relativism is still possible when it comes to social constructs. For example, a border between countries is a social construction. It exists only because people agree that it exists. It is possible that various groups disagree on the position or existance of such a thing. There is no objective reality to a border.

Of course, not everything is a social construct. I think the relativists run into problems when dealing with things which can be investigated objectively. The confusion they have is confusing the idea of a conception of reality with reality itself. Many groups may have different conceptions of reality but this does not imply that there's a separate reality for each of them.

DadaKopf

ScepticOne wrote:

I think the relativists run into problems when dealing with things which can be investigated objectively.

But the 'postmodern', or, say, Critical standpoint would argue that we cannot ever access the objective world objectively, not even though scientific methodologies. It's not that they're wanton Idealists, although some are accused of it, it's simply that we aren't capable of escaping our social contexts, so we're condemned to understand the objective world through, primarily, linguistic media, or mediations.

Post-structuralist philosophers don't deny objective reality - I remember reading some quote that went something like "if you scratch the surface of a post-structuralist, you find a Realist" - they just question the objective validity of man-made models which claim to objectively access objective reality.

I think they're more humble in their claims. They talk of 'structures', which blends the objective/subjective distinction, often utilising a phenomenological basis. You can't, of course, forget the context in which all that came about: Modernism led to murderous hubristic ideology, and, with post-WWII decolonisation, it became necessary to consider alternative narratives as legitimate.

The confusion they have is confusing the idea of a conception of reality with reality itself. Many groups may have different conceptions of reality but this does not imply that there's a separate reality for each of them.

The thing is, drawing an objective/subjective dichotomy might be exactly the same thing as drawing a border between two pieces of land. The relativists' point is that this is an arbitrary dichotomy. 'Reality' (social reality) doesn't neatly end where the subject begins, there's a feedback relationship there. Take for example constructions of 'The Environment' - are we part of the environment, or outside it? Is acid rain a natural environmental phenomenon? Y'know?

LactatingShark wrote:

I agree that there is some interest in reconciling, but is it really possible? Each view seems to refute the other, dont you think?

I don't think very many people think it's possible to reconcile the two at all, but who knows?