On relativism

Gregory August 19, 2020 at 16:09 1375 views 4 comments

So I've been flirting with relativism for awhile. I think I found a way to tap it now. I've been considering the idea of "areas" today and the One of the Eleatic school. Since Zeno was as much a relativist as Protagaras, we can conclude that relativism has a "place", to Greek thought, with regard to the "area" of fact. Consider the surface area of the circular One. That could be truth, but since it is merely the surface area, it has no substance. It's not in the ball, it's like a quality of the ball, and might even be inferior to it. Everything inside the One is relative. And when we experience things as objective we are merely touching the very edge, or I should say surface, of the sphere

Comments (4)

Gregory August 19, 2020 at 16:32 #444652 0 likes

I want to clarify that Zeno was a relativist in the sense I am describing because he asked what infinity divided by the finite was and what the finite divided by infinity was in relation to the spatial. He got contradictions and his sense of touch could feel that contradiction. I do not say that Parmenides was a relativist, nor Heraclitus

Gregory September 19, 2020 at 02:25 #453568 0 likes

I wanted to resurrect this thread by adding something to it. We can place truth on one side and contradiction on the other. Contradiction may be compatible with truth in some respect, if they keep their places. Contradiction, according to the "law of explosion" expounded on the Middle Ages, would overwhelm all truth, but I don't think this is so. Contradiction is part of the steps of the ladder leading to Absolute truth. They are superseded eventually but have their own truth in their own time.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone care defend the "law of explosion" and do so so that it's clear that two contradictory things can never be True at the same time

Banno September 19, 2020 at 06:01 #453623 0 likes

Quoting Gregory

I was wondering if anyone care defend the "law of explosion"...

I used it to dismiss Meta's Coherentism; but I don't see as I can help here. I've no clear understanding of what you are up to.

Gregory September 19, 2020 at 06:48 #453634 0 likes

Reply to Banno

Basically I'm talking about paraconsistent logic under a Hegelian framework (the internet encyclopedia of philosophy has an article on this type of logic and one on inconsistent mathematics). In Hegel's philosophy nothing is entirely true except the absolute truth which we realize in enlightenment or death. So the problem is distinguish ing between a paradox and a contradiction. Their boundaries are ill defined in relationship to each other. Zeno's paradox may be an actual contradiction (finite vs infinite). Kant thought so. German idealism in general seems to be perfectly comfortable with contradictions. Schelling invented the concept of a movement between thesis and antithesis which could result in a new truth. Hegel was the one who took this triad to the max and made quadrads and other deductions. But if contradiction is merely paradox, there would seem to be something off about their whole enterprise. I want to learn more about how logic works so I have a better framework when I read Kant, Schelling, Fitche, and Hegels. Thanks for noticing the thread