Issue 03 – Autumn 2008
Cover Image by Anna Kiciak
So why relativism? We chose to make relativism and objectivity the theme of the first printed issue of Dialectic because these are issues which are at the bedrock of philosophy. Discussions of objectivity and relativity – of reality, knowledge, truth, rationality, morality – are such key issues that it’s hard to make progress unless one has made some decision on them.
And yet, relativism is not taken as seriously as it should be by Anglo-American philosophy. Neat but flippant put-downs abound. But as Steve Holland’s essay later in this issue demonstrates, many of these need to be reassessed.
Relativism is a powerful force in contemporary academia – relativism about various issues is the accepted dogma in many areas of the social sciences and humanities, and relativism about morality is a crucial part of contemporary ideological orthodoxy. (Or perhaps not; see David Batho’s essay.) If English-speaking philosophers don’t start taking relativism seriously, we risk becoming insular, leaving debates which clearly lie within our field of interest to less critical hands. If relativism has become dogma for many intellectuals in other fields, we philosophers have no-one but ourselves to blame.
So, let’s get discussing…
Dave Allen
Editor
Relativism & Objectivity
In this issue:
Against Disdaining Cognitive Relativism by Stephen Holland
There is greater scepticism about cognitive relativism in analytic philosophy than in other academic disciplines and non-academic culture. I am less sceptical than most of my colleagues. This short piece suggests the following explanation of this situation. The three main discussions in cognitive relativism are of alethic relativism (relativism about truth), epistemic relativism, and conceptual (or ontological) relativism; there are arguments against each of these considered fatal by philosophers; but I don’t think any of them is fatal…
Mathematics and Intersubjectivity by Joseph Peach
Mathematics is often thought to consist of absolute truths, beyond human creativity and experience. I disagree. Mathematics does not exist in an unchanging realm of objective, absolute truths, but in the relative, intersubjective world of human agreement and creativity…
Moral Relativism and Liberalism by David Batho
With regards to moral relativism, this seems to be the principle at work: one culture has no basis for moral authority as there is no position from which one could look down on moralities and measure them against each other. Thus we have no right to denounce other moral positions as Wrong (with a capital ‘w’)…
Objectivity in Social Science and the Characterisation of Social Action By Ilaf Scheikh Elard
Social sciences differ from the natural sciences in one fundamental respect: while nature is meaningless, human action is meaningful. Physicists can explain why an apple fell from a tree by noting that the cause was a certain gravitational force. In contrast, when a historian tries to explain the actions of Napoléon Bonaparte on November 9, 1799, he has to impute that by seizing the control of the legislative councils in France, amongst other things, Napoléon meant to stage a coup d’état…
Pluralism and Political Legitimacy by Dean J. Machin
Pluralism about the good life raises many interesting philosophical questions but one of the most difficult relates to the justification of political authority. On many controversial issues people can agree to differ but not on political issues; this is because political authority is coercive. Political decisions are enforced on all citizens within a territory or jurisdiction whether they agree with those decisions or not…
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to Relative Space by James Lythgoe
As you read these words the page, screen or crumpled napkin from which you are reading them is travelling at the speed of the earth’s rotation, plus the speed of the earth’s orbit of the sun, plus the rotational speed, relative to its position in the radius, of the Milky Way, plus the speed of the Milky Way’s movement from the centre of the Big Bang to you…
—
All works belong to their respective owners.
