• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Relativism - A truly interesting discussion

Are you a relativist

  • Yes

  • No

  • Something else

Results are only viewable after voting.
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
RestlessSoul said:
I'm not claiming any knowledge, I'm offering a point of view.

What little I do claim to know about anything, I can offer sources for, but that didn't seem to me to be the point of your original question.
Click to expand...

Thats not what I meant RS.

See, everyone has a source of knowledge. Maybe in your humility you say that you dont claim any knowledge, but in order to make a point of view, you have a source of knowledge. And you mentioned claims as your source of knowledge. Thats fine. I was only reiterating it to confirm with you.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
firedragon said:
See, when people make stances or claims, noncognitivism is when they dont make propositions. So you cannot deem if that is true or false.
Click to expand...

Now I think it get it. Well, yes. Some utterances are neither true or false, but this one is either true or false, but that is relative and it can even be meaningless to some.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Now I think it get it. Well, yes. Some utterances are neither true or false, but this one is either true or false, but that is relative and it can even be meaningless to some.
Click to expand...

Okay. So if its meaningless, how can you use them as a source of knowledge? Do you understand the problem?
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
firedragon said:
Thats not what I meant RS.

See, everyone has a source of knowledge. Maybe in your humility you say that you dont claim any knowledge, but in order to make a point of view, you have a source of knowledge. And you mentioned claims as your source of knowledge. Thats fine. I was only reiterating it to confirm with you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it does have a limit:

Someone: I know X is Y in an objective sense.
Someone else: I know X is not Y in an objective sense.
One of them apparently doesn't know, if you accept some assumptions about logic. So I have learned I don't have to know, because there are people, who don't know in some cases.

That is a part of me as a limited rationalist, that I accept logic in a limited sense. But even that I am a rationalist has a limit, because I also accept the irrational in a limited sense.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
firedragon said:
Okay. So if its meaningless, how can you use them as a source of knowledge? Do you understand the problem?
Click to expand...

Because something meaningless is something that doesn't work in one sense, but then it works in another as long as you can think and are alive.
Nothing is in practice always something else.
Some people like the positives as truth, evidence, knowledge and so on. I like those related negatives more, because that is where the fun starts. And yes, that is subjective and some weird mix of good, useful and beautiful to me.
 
RestlessSoul

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
Thats not what I meant RS.

See, everyone has a source of knowledge. Maybe in your humility you say that you dont claim any knowledge, but in order to make a point of view, you have a source of knowledge. And you mentioned claims as your source of knowledge. Thats fine. I was only reiterating it to confirm with you.
Click to expand...


I see. Well, I would prefer to say that my beliefs rather than my knowledge come from information, observation (my own and others), intuition and experience.

I personally, for what it’s worth, place significant emphasis on intuition, particularly with regard to the veracity of any claims made by others. I’m also comfortable with a considerable amount of paradox and unresolved contradiction.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
Yeah, but it does have a limit:

Someone: I know X is Y in an objective sense.
Someone else: I know X is not Y in an objective sense.
One of them apparently doesn't know, if you accept some assumptions about logic. So I have learned I don't have to know, because there are people, who don't know in some cases.

That is a part of me as a limited rationalist, that I accept logic in a limited sense. But even that I am a rationalist has a limit, because I also accept the irrational in a limited sense.
Click to expand...

I think you have not understood a rationalist. ;)

Anyway, this is not relevant to what RS was speaking of.
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
RestlessSoul said:
I see. Well, I would prefer to say that my beliefs rather than my knowledge come from information, observation (my own and others), intuition and experience.

I personally, for what it’s worth, place significant emphasis on intuition, particularly with regard to the veracity of any claims made by others. I’m also comfortable with a considerable amount of paradox and unresolved contradiction.
Click to expand...

There you go. You just explained your source of knowledge. :) Honestly it seems to be anyway.

Just a comment. See, being comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions is not acceptance. Anyway, in philosophy PNC is an axiom. Without the principle of non contradiction, one may not get far in any idea. Even the scientific method.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
firedragon said:
There you go. You just explained your source of knowledge. :) Honestly it seems to be anyway.

Just a comment. See, being comfortable with paradoxes and contradictions is not acceptance. Anyway, in philosophy PNC is an axiom. Without the principle of non contradiction, one may not get far in any idea. Even the scientific method.
Click to expand...

No, we are getting somewhere. So is the NPC universal of all cases as all cases or only localized in some sense?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top