Mar 5, 2018 08:43 PM
https://worldfusionwisdom.com/relatively...ell-wrong/
EXCERPT: . . . So it is not surprising that despite [Bertrand] Russell’s many wise observations, Russell was wrong when he said this: “If everything were relative there would be nothing for it to be relative to.”
[...] How Russell was wrong [...] depends on the assumption that we capture objective truth with our language. [...] Now, Russell and his devotees would say we can capture objective truth with logic, but the truth is that logic is another form of language. Russell knows this but falls into a Platonic realism about this relationship. Plato’s biggest mistake was assuming that if we find an idea agreeable to reason then it is objectively true and real. And because these ideas that we find agreeable to reason are absolutely true and real, these ideas are the basis for us to make judgments. Russell’s life quest was to discover the objective principles of logical atomism that would unite epistemology and metaphysics under logical facts.
The problem with any form of epistemological realism is that our ideas are always relative to us. (Actually there are more problems with realism, but I want to keep this simple.) Saying an idea is agreeable to reason is really saying that it is agreeable to you [...] Logical facts are facts to which we agree. What relation our ideas have with an external world are not as definite as we would like to believe. We cannot know for certain that what we think makes sense rationally actually is true, and our ideas can never fully capture the complexities of reality. Logic tells us nothing about what is the case in the world because the world doesn’t fit into our tidy but tiny realm of logic.
You say, “hey, some ideas are not just mine [...] like your example of the kilogram which has a reality beyond my thinking.” Yes, but those ideas [...] are ideas agreeable to a group of people and their experiences, opinions, and intentions. [...] a kilogram [...] s something a group of people decided would be the standard they would use instead of using pound, stone, ounce, carat, tonne, or others. [...]
Now, here’s the thing about this kilogram: it is both relative and objective. It is relative in that [...] it is arbitrary decided by certain people at a certain time and place.[...] It is objective in that once the standard is established and accepted, it is objective truth within that community or culture as long as they continue to accept it as the standard.[...]
None of this means that there are not physical laws of nature and it doesn’t call into question the possibility of science.[...] Everything is relative and every thing can be something for other things to be relative to. The good news is that does not mean there are no standards. What it does mean is that we decide our standards and that those standards can change....
MORE: https://worldfusionwisdom.com/relatively...ell-wrong/
EXCERPT: . . . So it is not surprising that despite [Bertrand] Russell’s many wise observations, Russell was wrong when he said this: “If everything were relative there would be nothing for it to be relative to.”
[...] How Russell was wrong [...] depends on the assumption that we capture objective truth with our language. [...] Now, Russell and his devotees would say we can capture objective truth with logic, but the truth is that logic is another form of language. Russell knows this but falls into a Platonic realism about this relationship. Plato’s biggest mistake was assuming that if we find an idea agreeable to reason then it is objectively true and real. And because these ideas that we find agreeable to reason are absolutely true and real, these ideas are the basis for us to make judgments. Russell’s life quest was to discover the objective principles of logical atomism that would unite epistemology and metaphysics under logical facts.
The problem with any form of epistemological realism is that our ideas are always relative to us. (Actually there are more problems with realism, but I want to keep this simple.) Saying an idea is agreeable to reason is really saying that it is agreeable to you [...] Logical facts are facts to which we agree. What relation our ideas have with an external world are not as definite as we would like to believe. We cannot know for certain that what we think makes sense rationally actually is true, and our ideas can never fully capture the complexities of reality. Logic tells us nothing about what is the case in the world because the world doesn’t fit into our tidy but tiny realm of logic.
You say, “hey, some ideas are not just mine [...] like your example of the kilogram which has a reality beyond my thinking.” Yes, but those ideas [...] are ideas agreeable to a group of people and their experiences, opinions, and intentions. [...] a kilogram [...] s something a group of people decided would be the standard they would use instead of using pound, stone, ounce, carat, tonne, or others. [...]
Now, here’s the thing about this kilogram: it is both relative and objective. It is relative in that [...] it is arbitrary decided by certain people at a certain time and place.[...] It is objective in that once the standard is established and accepted, it is objective truth within that community or culture as long as they continue to accept it as the standard.[...]
None of this means that there are not physical laws of nature and it doesn’t call into question the possibility of science.[...] Everything is relative and every thing can be something for other things to be relative to. The good news is that does not mean there are no standards. What it does mean is that we decide our standards and that those standards can change....
MORE: https://worldfusionwisdom.com/relatively...ell-wrong/