|
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 0
|
|
There is a tiny logical engine
inside each fallacy, and sometimes
the logic is broken (like post hoc,
for example: the failure of the
contrapositive), but it does seem
the epistemic concerns stand seperate
from someone's main argument.
|
|
|
|
 Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JHuber
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 42
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Sid_16 wrote:
I've a doubt that how can I know what matters are objective matters and what matters are subjective. Is there any means to know, if it's objective or subjective. How can we be so sure that we know somethings that we think are objective but they're really objective?
And many people use the term 'it is relative', when they like to say 'it is relative ! Is there any psychological/philosophical reason for this kind of description?
Subjects, objects and units are somewhat interchangeable words. A relation is more than one of these combined together. Subjects have emotional ramifications or bias and they also have components. Objects do not have emotional ramifications but they do have components. Units have neither emotional ramifications or components.
For example, if a person loses a body part as a subject it is painful, as an object it is simply gone and as a unit then he has one less body part.
Philosophically, relations of subjects gives emotion theory, relations of objects gives engineering and the relation of units gives mathematics.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 6
|
|
"....if a person loses a body part as a subject it is painful, as an object it is simply gone and as a unit then he has one less body part.
Philosophically, relations of subjects gives emotion theory, relations of objects gives engineering and the relation of units gives mathematics."
Yes, but suppose the body part lost is a fetus? How were the pregnant woman and the fetus a unit? How were they not?
Is the fetus a subject or an object? And there will be any number of turbulent emotional reactions to this dead subject/object/unit.
How then is the "relativist fallacy" applicable here?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
Last Edit: 2010/02/26 03:34 By neither/nor.
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
The Sophists are considered to be the founding fathers of relativism in the Western World. Elements of relativism emerged among the Sophists in the 5th century BC. Notably, it was Protagoras who coined the phrase, "Man (i.e. a human being) is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." The thinking of the Sophists is mainly known through their opponents, Plato and Socrates.
.
As per Wiki, the Indian religions tend to be naturally relativistic. Mahavira (599-527 BC), the 24th Tirthankara of Jainism, developed an early philosophy regarding relativism and subjectivism known as Anekantavada. Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in accepting degrees of truth in other religions. A Rig Vedic hymn states that "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously."
.
It is claimed that the Sikh Gurus (religious leaders) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the one God and ultimate salvation for all souls who tread on the path of righteousness. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the Lord, certainly achieve salvation. The students of the Sikh faith are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicle for attaining spiritual enlightenment provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. The holy book of the Sikhs called the Sri Guru Granth Sahib says: "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." Guru Granth Sahib page 1350.
.
Is this a fallacy?
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
Subjects, objects and units are somewhat interchangeable words. A relation is more than one of these combined together. Subjects have emotional ramifications or bias and they also have components. Objects do not have emotional ramifications but they do have components. Units have neither emotional ramifications or components.
I guess when we believe that everybody has the same measuring rod, the judgment is objective, and / or vice-versa. Sometimes, when making a 'fair' judgment is necessary, we pick up an average rod for cases which do not see all using the same. Roughly, that may be a objective judgement.
correct me if I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
JHuber
Fresh Boarder
Posts: 42
|
|
Re:Relativist Fallacy 2 Years, 2 Months ago
|
Karma: 1
|
|
neither/nor wrote:
"....if a person loses a body part as a subject it is painful, as an object it is simply gone and as a unit then he has one less body part.
Philosophically, relations of subjects gives emotion theory, relations of objects gives engineering and the relation of units gives mathematics."
Yes, but suppose the body part lost is a fetus? How were the pregnant woman and the fetus a unit? How were they not?
Is the fetus a subject or an object? And there will be any number of turbulent emotional reactions to this dead subject/object/unit.
How then is the "relativist fallacy" applicable here?
A fetus is a unit if it is being counted. It is an object if it is part of a whole. It is a subject if it has emotional ramifications. All of this is a relativist fallacy if you believe that I think I am right but others do not.
Call your girlfriend an object and she'll slap you. Don't ever label her with a number either.
In experiments we typically refer to the item being analyzed as a subject. We could call it an object but objects have no emotional ramifications. If it changed it wouldn't matter. Smash an object against the wall and nobody cares, smash a subject against the wall and you might go to jail.
This gets a bit more complicated with syntax. In a sentence the noun before the verb is the subject and the noun after the verb is the object. Before the verb it is a subject because it is the noun being changed. The noun after the verb, the object, is only called an object because it is not the one being changed so there is no emotional ramification to it. This, I believe, is a minor abuse of the word 'object.' We use the term 'object' as there is none better.
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
The administrator has disabled public write access.
|
|
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
