Joseph Fetz makes a good point: "In the grand scheme, it is merely humans thinking like humans, and the dominant logic is most prevailing. Certainly the people 10 centuries from now will not think or reason exactly as we do today, and much of what we think is correct today will be proven (or thought) incorrect tomorrow (the figurative tomorrow). There is no measure but what measure we determine to be the measure today."
This reminds me of my discussion in this post from September on Feynman and the difference he notes between Babylonian and Greek reasoning.
People like Gene will often miss the mark by calling this stuff "relativism". It's not really relativism. Relativism implies that there's no standard of value at all except relative values. That's not the point. The point is that it's not foundationalism. Everyone's standard or perception of the standard is slightly different. But our standard for knowledge is all something like "what helps me navigate this universe" (of course, it's probably all a little different for different people). It's not foundationalist because we don't have any illusions about an "objective truth", but it's not really relativist either because we're all trying to achieve the same task (navigation of life) in the same surroundings (this universe).
That means nobody's logic is exactly the same and there's a certain degree of path dependence associated with our different logics, but they all seem to converge on similar themes.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I am not a relativist, even if some people will get that idea from what I said. I do believe that there exists objective truth, otherwise I would not spend so much time trying to seek that truth. However, I also understand that we can only think in human terms, that human thought is more than likely limited, and that what we define as truth today can certainly change over time (i.e. hopefully our limited knowledge becomes less limited).
ReplyDeleteWhen I said "dominant logic" this implies that there is variation amongst individuals, but that there is a common strain amongst all individuals. I believe this to be true, and it is the only way that I can imagine new ways of thinking about the world around us to arise (new ways of thinking come from thinking outside of the dominant logic, but must also be understood by that dominant logic).
I will say that what we believe to be true today is truth, at least in our own human conception of truth (i.e. it's our best explanation with the tools that we have). However, I also think that since we can only think in human terms, that the REAL objective truth may be outside of our current understanding (or possibly even human understanding as a whole), that we are only approximating using our limited knowledge.
A cat is a cat because we all agree with that statement. In other words, a cat is a cat because our own reasoning (or dominant logic) has defined it as such, so it is objectively true within the human sphere of thought. However, this does not mean that a cat is truly a cat outside of the human sphere of thought, nor does it mean that a cat will always be a cat within that sphere, but today it is objectively true that a cat is a cat.
Sorry, I'm not the best when it comes to trying to explain these philosophical concepts. Philosophy has always been my Achilles heal.
*heel
Delete" It's not foundationalist because we don't have any illusions about an "objective truth", but it's not really relativist either because we're all trying to achieve the same task (navigation of life) in the same surroundings (this universe)."
ReplyDeleteSo, are you objectively achieving a better navigation through life, or aren't you?
If you say you are, then that is a foundation. If you say you aren't, then why should anyone else care about your opinion on this?
Other people should care because we all seem to be navigating roughly the same sort of things.
DeleteThat's also why - I'm guessing - there is an objective reality out there. The point is we only access it in highly mediated ways. Just a guess, but I think it's a good one. It would make much more sense than the idea that there's not an objective reality and we all seem to be navigating roughly the same sort of thing coincidentally.