The Many Faces of Relativism (original) (raw)
Related papers
One could say of relativism what Hermann Ebbinghaus once observed with respect to psychology: to wit, that it has a "long past but a short history" (1908, 3). Although relativistic motifs have always played a significant role in philosophy, their systematic investigation-and thus the explicit formulation of different forms and strengths of relativism-is a child only of the twentieth century. Perhaps one could even maintain that most of the really important, detailed and systematic work on relativism was done by philosophers alive today. This volume documents both the long past and the short history of relativism.
Relativism: a conceptual analysis
ABSTRACT Relativism: a conceptual analysis Vittorio Villa In my paper I will try, in the first part, to give a conceptual definition of relativism, with the aim of singling out the possible basic elements common to all the most relevant relativist conceptions. In conformity with my definition, we have to qualify as “relativistic” all the conceptions according to which all or a relevant part of – cognitive, semantic, ethic, cultural, etc. - criteria and beliefs are necessary dependent on a given context (paradigm, culture, language, conceptual scheme, etc.) that is by its turn chosen as point of reference. From this point of view it is “absolutism” which stands in radical opposition to relativism. In the second part of the paper I will deal with some important critical observations which have been recurrently aroused against relativism. From this point of view, a quite serious problem arises from the fact that many relativists would like to have the chance, at least in some important cases, of expressing some objective judgments, for instance in terms of ethically “right” or “wrong”, or in terms of empirically “true” or “false”. In the third part of my paper, in order to answer to this difficulty, I will propose a sketch of a viable and coherent relativistic conception: a conception that doesn’t incorporate at all absolutist elements and that nevertheless could be able to explain the presence of a common core of criteria and beliefs in all our conceptual schemes and beliefs. Two distinctions are of particular importance here: firstly, the distinction between local conceptual schemes and long term frameworks, through which it is possible to clarify that even the most stable and consolidated beliefs common to our conceptual schemes are after all relative; secondly, the distinction between environment (the commonly shared source of our stimulations and perceptions) and world (the subject of our linguistic and theoretical representations, which is always a human construction). Through this last distinction it becomes possible, in my opinion, to speak, even inside a coherent relativist epistemological conception, of the existence of an objective reality. Vittorio Villa
Four Arguments for Universal Relativism [published version 1.0]
Realism - Relativism - Constructivism: Contributions of the 38th International Wittgenstein Symposium, 2015
In the academic literature and elsewhere, specific relativisms are often a hotly debated topic. In this paper, I considerably up the ante by proposing an across the board universal relativism that is supported by four arguments: the inductive argument, the argument from causality, the argument from elimination, and the argument against self-refutation.
Four Arguments for Universal Relativism [presented version 1.1]
38th International Wittgenstein Symposium "Realism - Relativism - Constructivism", Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria, August 9-15, 2015, 2015
In the academic literature and elsewhere, specific relativisms are often a hotly debated topic. In this paper, I considerably up the ante by proposing an across the board universal relativism that is supported by four arguments: the inductive argument, the argument from causality, the argument from elimination, and the counterargument against self-refutation.
Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 2023
Relativism and discussions of the relativity of human judgment have played an important role in philosophy since the 1950s. Such claims are regarded by many as the enemy of realism, the view that human judgments can be valid with respect to their objects as those objects obtain independent of the judgments. Most relativisms assert the relativity of human judgment to some trait of the judge, hence are anthropic. But there is another kind: objective relativism. It was espoused by some of the American pragmatists of the early to mid-twentieth century. Their hope was that objective relativism was compatible with realism while avoiding dualism and idealism. It claimed things themselves are relative. The view eventually disappeared. This article examines this neglected doctrine, not to determine its truth, but its nature. What kind of theory was it, what could it claim to accomplish, and what could it not? Some of its proponents regarded it as a naturalistic metaphysics, but this is problematic. This topic is suggestive for the formulation of a naturalism that rejects physicalism yet is compatible with science and realism.
Introduction (Viewpoint Relativism)
Viewpoint Relativism, 2020
Epistemological relativism is a vast field of research that is composed of the relativity of truth, knowledge, reality and rationality. In this book, I will discuss all of these fields, but this book is not meant to be a general overview of epistemological relativism. Its aim, instead, is to present a new approach to relativism that is based on the concept of points of view. For that I will present a precise definition of points of view in this book: In a point of view, an aspect represents an object for a subject. This means that points of view are always about choosing the features of an object. Viewpoint relativism is the hypothesis that epistemic questions are viewpoint-dependent. Therefore, we cannot answer, for example, whether statement p is justified without referring to a point of view. This hypothesis does not support global relativism, according to which all epistemic questions are viewpoint-dependent. The general criticism that relativism disproves itself does not apply to the local relativism that I endorse. Very often, relativism’s critics assume that according to relativism, all points of view (or frameworks) are equally as good. In reality, not many relativists support this kind of extreme relativism, and I myself reject it by demonstrating that points of view can be compared and weighed using different criteria. Relativists do accept that there are no neutral criteria with which to choose points of view.