Absolute vs. Relative Truth Rob Koons Professor of Philosophy University of Texas—Austin robkoons.net Rob Koons Professor of Philosophy University of Texas—Austin robkoons.net

Relative to What? Most common answers: Relative to each as an individual Relative to our culture (race, gender, religion?) Relative to our basic theory, assumptions Most common answers: Relative to each as an individual Relative to our culture (race, gender, religion?) Relative to our basic theory, assumptions

Alfred Tarski’s Theory Convention T: ‘Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white. ‘2 + 2 = 5’ is true if and only if = 5. No room for relativity? White relative to me? Equal relative to me? Convention T: ‘Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white. ‘2 + 2 = 5’ is true if and only if = 5. No room for relativity? White relative to me? Equal relative to me?

Ancient vs. Modern Relativism  In ancient times (5 th century BCE), relativism was tied to a rejection of the reality/appearance distinction.  In modern times, relativism is associated with a fact/value or “fact/opinion” distinction. A limited relativism: ethics, aesthetics, religion.  In ancient times (5 th century BCE), relativism was tied to a rejection of the reality/appearance distinction.  In modern times, relativism is associated with a fact/value or “fact/opinion” distinction. A limited relativism: ethics, aesthetics, religion.

Fact/Opinion?  = 4.  Fact  The Sun is the center of the solar system.  Fact  Torture is wrong.  Opinion  = 4.  Fact  The Sun is the center of the solar system.  Fact  Torture is wrong.  Opinion

Emotivism “Torture is wrong” is neither true nor false. Instead, it is merely used to express disapproving feelings toward torture. “Torture is wrong” is neither true nor false. Instead, it is merely used to express disapproving feelings toward torture.

C. S. Lewis’s Examples From The Abolition of Man.  The waterfall is sublime/pretty.  It is sweet/bitter to die for one's country. From The Abolition of Man.  The waterfall is sublime/pretty.  It is sweet/bitter to die for one's country.

Lewis’s Objection  Emotivism: cannot explain the phenomenon of disagreements over value judgments.  "That is pretty." "No, it is not."  "I feel sick." "No, I feel quite well."  If value judgments are merely projections of one's feelings, what are we disagreeing about? How could arguments, evidence be relevant?  Emotivism: cannot explain the phenomenon of disagreements over value judgments.  "That is pretty." "No, it is not."  "I feel sick." "No, I feel quite well."  If value judgments are merely projections of one's feelings, what are we disagreeing about? How could arguments, evidence be relevant?

The Frege-Geach Problem  What can emotivism do with logically complex judgments?  If torture is not wrong, then neither is murder (killing the innocent).  Either torture is wrong, or murder is not wrong.  Compare: either x is greater than 2, or it is smaller than 4.  What can emotivism do with logically complex judgments?  If torture is not wrong, then neither is murder (killing the innocent).  Either torture is wrong, or murder is not wrong.  Compare: either x is greater than 2, or it is smaller than 4.

Truth Functions and Composition TF TTT FTF x ≤ 4 x > 2 Either x > 2 or x ≤ 4

Emotivism: Composition Fails +0- +??? 0??? -??? Murder is wrong Torture is wrong Either torture is wrong or murder is not wrong.

Protagoras’s Relativism  Ancient Sophist: c c. 420 BC. Born in Thrace, lived in Athens.  Discussed in Plato’s Theaetetus. Knowledge = sense perception.  “Man is the measure of all things: of those which are, that they are, and of those which are not, that they are not.”  Entails global relativism, since how things appear is relative to the perceiver.  Ancient Sophist: c c. 420 BC. Born in Thrace, lived in Athens.  Discussed in Plato’s Theaetetus. Knowledge = sense perception.  “Man is the measure of all things: of those which are, that they are, and of those which are not, that they are not.”  Entails global relativism, since how things appear is relative to the perceiver.

True for Me/False for You  Things are for me as they appear to me. Likewise for everyone else.  Hence, reality and truth vary from person to person.  One thing can be light, sweet, warm to one person, but heavy, bitter and cold to another.  Things are for me as they appear to me. Likewise for everyone else.  Hence, reality and truth vary from person to person.  One thing can be light, sweet, warm to one person, but heavy, bitter and cold to another.

Key Problem for Protagoras  Protagoras is a professional teacher, who is paid on the basis of his promise to make his students wiser.  But, if everything is exactly as it appears (seems) to each of us, then we are all already as wise as it is possible to be. Relativism entails equality of opinion. But education presupposes inequality.  Protagoras is a professional teacher, who is paid on the basis of his promise to make his students wiser.  But, if everything is exactly as it appears (seems) to each of us, then we are all already as wise as it is possible to be. Relativism entails equality of opinion. But education presupposes inequality.

Protagoras’ Answer: Pragmatism  Pragmatism = Prudential Hedonism  A wise person is able to secure good (pleasant) appearances, now and in the future.  We are not all equal in our skill at accomplishing this (in the long run). A sophist (Protagoras) can make us better at this.  Pragmatism = Prudential Hedonism  A wise person is able to secure good (pleasant) appearances, now and in the future.  We are not all equal in our skill at accomplishing this (in the long run). A sophist (Protagoras) can make us better at this.

Pragmatism and Relativism are Inconsistent  If relativism were applied to the future, as well as the present, then all would be equally wise: if it seems to you that your actions will work, then they will work.

How do We Know the Future?  Such relativism about the future seems absurd. We all know that opinions about the future can turn out (absolutely) false.  We don’t know the future by sensory perception, or by memory.  We must know it by using our reason: by reasoning about what the future must or would hold.  Such relativism about the future seems absurd. We all know that opinions about the future can turn out (absolutely) false.  We don’t know the future by sensory perception, or by memory.  We must know it by using our reason: by reasoning about what the future must or would hold.

Rational Knowledge  There are other things that we know by a purely intellectual power, not by the senses.  For example, we know that a color is not the same as an odor. We don’t know this by seeing or smelling.  We know that things perceived by different senses have existence in common.  There are other things that we know by a purely intellectual power, not by the senses.  For example, we know that a color is not the same as an odor. We don’t know this by seeing or smelling.  We know that things perceived by different senses have existence in common.

More Rational Knowledge  Finally, when we judge that things are good, just or beautiful, we judge by the mind, not the senses.  If beauty were perceived directly by the senses, it would (like color or odor) be perceived by a single sense. There are beautiful sights, smells, thoughts, etc.  Finally, when we judge that things are good, just or beautiful, we judge by the mind, not the senses.  If beauty were perceived directly by the senses, it would (like color or odor) be perceived by a single sense. There are beautiful sights, smells, thoughts, etc.

Relativism is Self-Defeating  Interpret relativism broadly: if you judge things to be a certain way, then things are that way (for you).  Most people judge that such relativism is false. Hence, such relativism is false for most people.  Protagoras will have to admit that his doctrine is both true (for him) and false (for others).  Interpret relativism broadly: if you judge things to be a certain way, then things are that way (for you).  Most people judge that such relativism is false. Hence, such relativism is false for most people.  Protagoras will have to admit that his doctrine is both true (for him) and false (for others).

Roger Scruton A writer who says there are no truths, or that all truths are “merely relative”, is asking you not to believe him. So, don’t. A writer who says there are no truths, or that all truths are “merely relative”, is asking you not to believe him. So, don’t.

Why do we find Relativism attractive?  The problem of recalcitrant disagreement.  If anyone of us really knows the truth, then we should be able to persuade everyone who disagrees.  But, we can’t.  The problem of recalcitrant disagreement.  If anyone of us really knows the truth, then we should be able to persuade everyone who disagrees.  But, we can’t.

Absolute Truth vs. Absolute Certainty  But this confuses the two.  Recalcitrant disagreement may prove that none of us can be absolutely certain that we have the absolute truth.  It can’t prove that none of us rightly believes the absolute truth.  But this confuses the two.  Recalcitrant disagreement may prove that none of us can be absolutely certain that we have the absolute truth.  It can’t prove that none of us rightly believes the absolute truth.

The Error of the “Enlightenment” The “Enlightenment”, beginning with the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes ( ) and the British philosopher John Locke ( ), created the Myth of the Method. According to this Myth, all human reasoning can be reduced to a mechanical recipe, a set of procedures that all can follow to reach the right conclusions, without the need of exercising judgment or wisdom. The “Enlightenment”, beginning with the French philosopher and mathematician René Descartes ( ) and the British philosopher John Locke ( ), created the Myth of the Method. According to this Myth, all human reasoning can be reduced to a mechanical recipe, a set of procedures that all can follow to reach the right conclusions, without the need of exercising judgment or wisdom.

Post-Modernism: The Overreaction The Enlightenment idea experienced a series of catastrophic refutations in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, as philosophical rationalism failed to produce the universal consensus that the Enlightenment had promised. In modern times, post-modernism has arisen as a natural reaction to this failure: denying the very existence of human reason or of a universal Truth (with a capital T), as opposed to “my truth” or “our truth”. The Enlightenment idea experienced a series of catastrophic refutations in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, as philosophical rationalism failed to produce the universal consensus that the Enlightenment had promised. In modern times, post-modernism has arisen as a natural reaction to this failure: denying the very existence of human reason or of a universal Truth (with a capital T), as opposed to “my truth” or “our truth”.

The Post-Modern Mindset Post-modernists are suspicious of any claim to have or to know any universal truth. They tend to see the use of logic, argumentation, or reasoning as a form of coercion or aggression. “Tolerance” becomes the only virtue. Post-modernists are suspicious of any claim to have or to know any universal truth. They tend to see the use of logic, argumentation, or reasoning as a form of coercion or aggression. “Tolerance” becomes the only virtue.

Can Abolutists be Tolerant?  Yes, if they take a kind of tolerance (respect for freedom, gentleness in correction) to be absolutely good.  In contrast, a relativist can be completely intolerant, so long as he has positive feelings about coercion (as many do).  Yes, if they take a kind of tolerance (respect for freedom, gentleness in correction) to be absolutely good.  In contrast, a relativist can be completely intolerant, so long as he has positive feelings about coercion (as many do).

Democracy and Relativism  As Plato observed in Republic, Book X, relativism is especially tempting in a democracy.  If all are equal, then all ideas and all opinions are equal.  But this is destructive of rational thought, self-criticism, and democracy itself.  As Plato observed in Republic, Book X, relativism is especially tempting in a democracy.  If all are equal, then all ideas and all opinions are equal.  But this is destructive of rational thought, self-criticism, and democracy itself.