Moral Relativism & Epistemic Relativism

It seems that some can be absolute about relativism itself. Can't we hope for some universals?

All absolutes attempt "closure" against the void or infinite regress. Berkeley's "God as ultimate observer" was a version obviously suited his clerical calling.

All universals--the nominalist insist--are just words. All claims (truth propositions), it seems to me, are contextual, meaningful with reference to other claims. I prefer to think of the World as a unity of pluralities (e.g., meanings, truths--even falsehoods). Oh, what the Hell: I'm confused but don't mind at all. Never mind.

Yes, all absolutes are defenses against emptiness. But the latter is a comfort when we see it for what it is.
What about the Hindu myth that Brahman observes himself (everything) only through all the witnesses (like us) of the world? That suggests that in a way Berkeley was right. But that also means, from the Hindu perspective, that you and I are "God" (tat tvam asi). He's not as Berkeley would have it separate from us (and all of His creations).

That doesn't sound so unreasonable to me, as long as there is some hope for attaining genuine knowledge.

Epistemic realism posits that justification tracks truth. So if evidentialism or reliablism generate true non relative facts, they only do so because the theory itself is coherent with an absolute notion of truth.



Justification methods, like I have already said, only make sense if justification tracks truth. It is like asking whether the earth orbits sun- either it does or it doesn't.

The relativist claims that the earth does orbit about around the sun, but this is only true relative to an epistemic framework. However, this claim itself is self defeating because the claim itself is relative to a proposed framework. I could ask what justifies that? It holds no more weight than the assertion that the earth is flat. relativistic notions of truth regress ad infinitum.

If you simply think agreement does the basic justifcatory work then you fall into the rejection I make in the OP. Why should mere acceptance justify what is reasonable to believe? It is a completely unjustified assumption. By contrast, we have reason to believe some things are true because the beliefs themselves are justified according to what is in fact true. At least some facts require abosolute truth-not everything is relative.



Anyone who adheres to evidentialism or reliabilism would be epistemic realists.

Oh yes, there's always the opportunity to obtain small pragmatic relativistic truths, the kinds that have promoted the survival of our species (even if, as Nietzsche put it, they are errors, in some ultimate sense). These truths are always "provisional" in the sense that the march of Science is progressive. Truth, with a capital T, is, as far as I'm concerned, always a SUBJECTIVE GRACE. It is "absolute" (in quotes of course) in that it strikes one as an ineffable sui generis reality having nothing (or little) to do with a context of theoretical principles and intellectual conventions. And given its subjective nature it should be viewed with scepticism by others. It should remain private rather than public, always "realization" never "doctrine."

You've not watched Rorty then ?

Sure I'll watch it soon.

If you do, you will find some supportive clips alongside. In particular "The End of Philosophy" summarizes Rorty's argument regarding the impossibility of foundationally establishing "the nature of reality" (Re: 1979 "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature")

That impossibility is similar to the nihilism introduced by Niezsche with his pronouncement that God is Dead, a pronouncement that reinforced our freedom from absolutism.
When I use the term I mean it in a different sense.
Thanks for the Youtube. I was able to download "the end of philosophy". Wonderful.

Let me just state loud and clear about Rorty--- Rorty is an IDIOT !!!
Is Theory is self defeating, is rejection of truth resets truth inside language itself, as a sum of all possible states combinations in language...Language becomes Truth in all it can address ! If accepting what he says, then there´s no outer "world" to talk about any more on what is it that not corresponds...
...from the symbolically to what ? if there´s no thing to contrast language with...from there it follows that truth is necessarily addressing linguistic functionality, given established measurable parameters...it becomes "mathematics", or information algorithms...
I wonder just how this crap keeps up for so long, how is it possible that nobody step up yet to kick the **** out of such theory...amazing !!!

...in fact from there it follows that what is meant with "outer world" in relation to the origin, is the relative comparison, from the "input" to the "output", between different linguistic algorithms with different sets of measurement like changing from "Imperial" to "metrics" from agent to agent while interacting, and "agents" are themselves linguistic assembles of information software dealing with other layers of language...the notion of "contact" or "communication" in between entity´s, objects, agents, becomes itself implicit and internal to language...and since language itself is not a continuum but discrete, once it comes in packets, necessarily "linguistic frames of work" become convertible and inter-changeable...thus TRUTH after all resides in there !

above both posts were several times re-edited in an effort for better clarification...in hope it can help the potential reader...

Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

...when pragmatists come with that crap that "truth is what works" the first thing one should shove up their brains is to demand an explanation on what they are admitting to be working after all...

I'm beginning to suspect that for you truth is what does not work.

I'm beginning to suspect that for you truth is what does not work.

I'm reminded of of the celebrated Evans-Pritchard study of the working of the Azande witchcraft system versus the working of the Western court system, in the establishment of "truth". I think Fil should
present, and then compare and contrast the "algorithms" he claims to be associated with each case.

...what did you miss ? that "truth" itself is a cognition, that its value resides in language, or that the entirety of your perceptions, of your senses, are equally "linguistic" in nature (vision, audition, touch, smell, etc) ?

...If truth is banned from cognitive possibility with it you throw out the very idea of an "outer world"...you reset its value and meaning towards language itself and with it all the experiences you have...the very "you" becomes linguistic, not just words but senses to, once they are organized in a similar way to language itself...(they are another kind of language)

...denying Truth is denying Reality not just the correspondence...

Ah....now I can see that Fil is making the very error highlighted by Rorty in that the attempt to move epistemic foundationalism from "the world" to "language" is a mere displacement activity by "philosophers" wishing to protect their "privileged expert status" which was being eroded by the social sciences. (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 1979 ).