Where do we draw the line between the relative and the absolute?
Okay, let's start with an uncontroversial example: orientation. There's no such thing as an absolute direction. I may see things to my left from my perspective, but that may not b how you see things since you're looking in a different direction from where I am. However none of us is more privileged than the other. This is what it means to say that direction is relative.
Moving on to examples in physics, it is often said that motion is also relative. You may see things as stationary in your rest frame if you're on a train, but I may see them moving if I'm standing on a platform nearby. This is classical Galilean relativity, but things get even weirder and controversial once we move into the realm of special relativity, where one's sense of time and space is also derived as being relative based on the relativity of motion.
At this point, one may get the sense that everything is relative, but that can't be the case right? Surely there have to be some absolute facts about the world. For instance, I exist and you do too (otherwise how else are you reading this) and that's just a basic fact. In addition, questions about the nature of reality on matters such as determinism, the mind, and free will should be ones that have definite answers to them. Indeed, despite the varying opinions that people may have on such matters, and the fact that we cannot empirically settle them one way or another, we engage in heated debates under the implicit assumption that one position or another is the true one.
So perhaps there are some matters that are relative and others that are absolute. There are some issues that have absolute answers (like those in philosophy) and others (like direction) that don't. But how does one go about distinguishing between the two? At least that's the issue that I've been grappling with as of late and currently I don't have much of a satisfactory answer apart from the fact that I feel like that's how things should be.
Of course on the other hand this may just mean that everything is either relative or absolute, but then the question becomes which one to pick. On the one hand I like to think that there is an absolute set of facts out there to uncover about the world, but at the same time I also don't like the idea that there is some sense of an "absolute left" in the world.
Moving on to examples in physics, it is often said that motion is also relative. You may see things as stationary in your rest frame if you're on a train, but I may see them moving if I'm standing on a platform nearby. This is classical Galilean relativity, but things get even weirder and controversial once we move into the realm of special relativity, where one's sense of time and space is also derived as being relative based on the relativity of motion.
At this point, one may get the sense that everything is relative, but that can't be the case right? Surely there have to be some absolute facts about the world. For instance, I exist and you do too (otherwise how else are you reading this) and that's just a basic fact. In addition, questions about the nature of reality on matters such as determinism, the mind, and free will should be ones that have definite answers to them. Indeed, despite the varying opinions that people may have on such matters, and the fact that we cannot empirically settle them one way or another, we engage in heated debates under the implicit assumption that one position or another is the true one.
So perhaps there are some matters that are relative and others that are absolute. There are some issues that have absolute answers (like those in philosophy) and others (like direction) that don't. But how does one go about distinguishing between the two? At least that's the issue that I've been grappling with as of late and currently I don't have much of a satisfactory answer apart from the fact that I feel like that's how things should be.
Of course on the other hand this may just mean that everything is either relative or absolute, but then the question becomes which one to pick. On the one hand I like to think that there is an absolute set of facts out there to uncover about the world, but at the same time I also don't like the idea that there is some sense of an "absolute left" in the world.
Comments (9)
We can establish that you and I exist relative to each other, but that doesn’t make it an absolute fact that either of us exist. In a galaxy far far away, you and I are yet to exist. Likewise, we can ask a question about the nature of reality, and determine an answer relative to the question, but this answer cannot be absolute.
It would be reassuring if we could be absolutely certain about something, but I’m inclined to believe that the absolute is at best a possibility...
But you can certainly see from your own point of view that you exist. And from your POV there are states of yourself that you were and have yet to become. That's just a fact as much as the cogito is one and surely that must mean something, right? It's hard to see what that could mean to exist in a "relative" sense. It's almost as if you're saying that we're all Schrodinger's cats in a sense.
Quoting Possibility
Then doesn't that make the answer pointless? Philosophy in general is all about determining the true nature of reality. If there is no such thing then why do we engage in these debates as if there is one instead of just acknowledging each other's different ontological views and leaving it at that much like we do on matters of orientation or motion?
But I have to admit that I ascertain this existence only in relation to what is not me. Hence my existence is relative. In a sense, yes - we are all Schrödinger’s cat.
Quoting Mr Bee
That depends on what we expect the true nature of reality to be, in an absolute sense. If we expect it to be neatly packaged into our language and logic and presented to the world whole, then I’d say any absolute ‘answer’ will elude us.
I think Descartes would disagree with you.
Quoting Possibility
The answer doesn't have to conform to our language. It just has to exist, at least that's my point.
Well couldn’t something be a fact and be relative? I’m not sure those two terms are mutually exclusive in the way you are using them. Time is relative according to Einstein, yet when time distorts because of gravity there is still a fact of the matter depending on the relative position.
Quoting Mr Bee
I’m not sure how you are using “absolute” here...is 2+2 equals 4 absolute? What kinds of philosophical answers are absolute?
I’m confused about your treatment of “relative” being the opposite of absolute, is that how you are using the terms? Like “up” and “down”?
Quoting Mr Bee
Well there are facts out there to be discovered, but also there are facts about relative positions. “Left” is relative, but that doesn’t change the fact that something can be factually to your “left”, and factually to someone else’s “right” at the same time. Right? It’s not like the fact that the other persons position which puts the object on their “right” somehow makes the object not to your “left” anymore..it’s still absolutely to your “left”.
Quoting DingoJones
My use of relative and absolute is in line with concepts like relative vs. absolute motion. For instance, are you at rest right now? According to Galilean relativity there is no answer to that question. According to some reference frames you are moving and others state that you are not, but there is no fact of the matter. Contrast that with Newton's conception of absolute space where there is a concept of absolute motion. There is a definitive answer as to your motion because motion is absolute.
Quoting DingoJones
Quoting DingoJones
What kind of facts are you referring to here? Statements like: "To x, event a is simultaneous with event b"? If so then I wouldn't call that relative, as far as relativity is concerned. According to that theory, it is statements like "Event a is simultaneous with event b" that are not absolute.
Pick relative, imo. It is fundamentally a relational universe. Einstein's relativity should seal the deal. :smile:
Perhaps. But his first step was to doubt everything, and then arbitrarily select the possibility that he exists in time as his zero point energy, so to speak.
Quoting Mr Bee
What form would you like the answer in, then? Personally, I’d say the answer is pure possibility. Most wouldn’t consider that a satisfactory answer, though, because it’s meaningless in itself. But that’s the point.
I think we have to be satisfied with an incomplete form that is relative to an aspect of reality we can fully embody, such that our ongoing relation to it IS the answer. This is what I think Lao Tzu constructed in the Tao Te Ching.