Relativism

WinstonSmith

Hey all,
I have been touching a bit on relativism recently and was wondering if anyone could clarify the difference between cognitive and value relativism, and epistemological and moral relativism with examples?
Thanks.

Joycey

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Hey all,
I have been touching a bit on relativism recently and was wondering if anyone could clarify the difference between cognitive and value relativism, and epistemological and moral relativism with examples?
Thanks.

Cant really answer your question but you might find this useful:http://philosophybites.com/2007/08/simon-blackburn.html

Decent enough series, id recommend checking it out. The ones on Avicenna(sp?) and Aristotle and Happiness are very good, some other ones too

Joe1919

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Hey all,
I have been touching a bit on relativism recently and was wondering if anyone could clarify the difference between cognitive and value relativism, and epistemological and moral relativism with examples?
Thanks.

The Stanford encyclopaedia suggests that there are over 162 different type of relativism, so you can appreciate that this is a tricky subject.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

The second thing you need to be aware of is the fact-value distinction. (is-ought problem)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact-value_distinction

Nietzsche believed that there were no facts at all, only interpretations of facts and it is the human who brings his values and his instincts to bear on his interpretations. Hence, he denied the fact-value distinction.

Now some people for example may agree that values are relative but deny that facts are relative and hence may be moral relativists but not epistemological (knowledge) relativists.

Thirdly, there are in-between positions. For example, Kant did not criticise 'reason' but criticised 'pure reason' and many philosophers try to bridge the gap between subjectivity and objectivity, admitting to some relativism but also insisting that we can have some objectivity.

I would tend to take this position. There are many ways to skin a cat (subjective position) but there are also very poor ways of doing this job (I am being objective here).
However, many would argue that this position is pragmatism i.e. there are no right/wrong or true/false ways of skinning a cat as such but there are some ways better or more useful than others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

Another mid way position is Fallibilism, the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism

Finally, there is a difference between a relativist and a sceptic. The (extreme) relativist denies that there is any truth at all whereas the sceptic accepts that there may be a truth but that we will never be able to know or find it.

WinstonSmith

Thanks to both of ye for these responses. They are quite informative. Could either of ye, or even anybody, possibly point me to an introduction to relativism in book form. I was told about the Cambridge Companion to Philosophy, which apparently has a small section on relativism in it, which would be comprehindible by my brain, but I can't seem to find it. Would anybody know where I may find it or a good alternative?
Best.

Joe1919

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Could either of ye, or even anybody, possibly point me to an introduction to relativism in book form.

Truth: A Guide for the Perplexed by Simon Blackburn
http://books.google.ie/books?id=m4ckXTh69VMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=truth+blackburn&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

The above book discusses relativism and I think does a good job in bringing out the possibility of 'truth' in a relative world. (my opinion)