From: PaR (par@nu-world.com)
Date: Sat Apr 11 1998 - 09:44:48 MDT
>> Is the statement "all things are relative" a true statement? You see how
>> absurd such windage is? Relativism is incoherent. If rationality is not
>> wedded to truth then it is clearly irrationality.
>Reilly, all phenomenons are relative to the relativity of time and space.
>This relativism is true: In our experience is there only one time -- but
>if we send a atomary watch (A) with a space shuttle around earth and have
>an other similar runing atomary watch (B) on earth than there is a time
>difference between A and B after A has returning from space.
>If Einsteins proposal of general theory of relativity is true than every
>watching of phenomenons is relative to the location of the watching human
>in time and space -- and there isn't any sign that Einsteins general the-
>ory of relativity is wrong.
>Not every relativism is incoherent.
I'm coming into this debate late, so I appologize if my topics have already
been covered.
The argument of relativism vs absolutes is a very slipperey slope.
First I want to point out that asserting a position of an absolute frequently
leads to a fallacy. (Notice I didn't say "always" because my statement
would then be a paradox; I would be falling for the same fallacy.) (Humor: whenever
anyone starts out by saying "all" or "none" my initial gut reaction is to <in
my best Monty Python/Holy Grail voice>"run away!"</voice>) :-)
For example, the statements "all things are deterministic," or "nothing
is deterministic" both fall into that category. Empirical & experimental & experiential observation would
seem to indicate that many things are deterministic (eg classical physics).
Empirical & experimental & experiential observation would also seem to
indicate that there are some things that are not deterministic (eg quantum mechanics).
Since I utilize the pragmatic viewpoint, it seems to me that the approach to take is simply
"take the approach that produces the results you want." In the example above
this would mean that in some situations a "deterministic perspective" might be
more useful, and in some situations an "indeterministic" one might be more
useful.
I don't consider myself knowledgable enough about physics (at least
at the current time) to evaluate the merit of relativity in that area. I will
focus on relativity in ethics.
Going back to my previous point, if you say "all morals are relative" then
you just created a paradoxical conundrum. You would be using an absolute
statement to affirm relativity. An oxymoron. :-)
OTOH, if you accept that there are in fact absolute morals/ethics, then you come
up against the dificult problems of who determines those ethics/morals, and how are
they determined. The historic solution to this problem is to default to some
religious gibberish. However I doubt that many transhumans would find that solution
acceptable (I certainly don't.)
SOme people accept that these ethics should be determined through democratic
vote. I do not accept this as a solution because you almost always end up with a
minority who is then typically coerced into conformance (the altrernative frequently being
death or imprisonment). Since I believe that non-coercion/non-violence *must*
be a fundamental principle if the human race is to survive and prosper, I do not
accept this as a solution. If OTOH, democratic vote is not backed up by force
than the voting itself really isn't all that useful and sounds more like my solution
below.
"Demoacracy is the worst form of 'government' .... accept for all the rest."
-- Winston Churchill (single quotes are mine)
So my personal conclusion uses a combination of pragmatism and common sense.
I would use the phrase "there are no absolute morals/ethics *that I know of*; each
individual decides for themselves what is ethical/moral. Personally, since I like
pragmatic and anarcho-capitalist ideas (although I don't exactly
like using these or any lables - they are too constrictive), my personal ethics are
"do what works, as long as it doesn't stomp on the rights of others." (I refer to
"rights" in an anarcho-capitalist way - but that is an enitrely differernt topic.)
However the problem with the no absolute morals/ethics statement is that it leads to
the innevitable "so you believe that anyone can do anything to anyone else - plunder,
murder, rape etc.!!"
And my answer to that is "no
for practical/pragmatic reasons this ethical relativity needs to be moderated by some
sort of common, agreed upon limits within which trans/post human civilization can
exist (if you accept having plunder, murder, rape etc. you have no civilization - depending
on your definition; my definition of "civilization" doesn't include those things).
So what is needed is some sort of "working boundaries" from within which
that ethical relativism can exist. This would be sort of a "meta-ethics". Of course you
then run into the same problem again of who determines these "meta-ethics." (See
my reason above for why I do not accept democracy as a method of achieving this.)
It would seem to me that two logical base-components of such meta-ethics would be non-
violence/non-coercion and a willingness to allow competing ethics/morals and memes to
exist in the "marketplace of ideas". I think a good place to start for these "meta-ethics"
are the "principles of civilization" that are posted somewhere on
http://www.buildfreedom.com (of course these are just my opinions) Freedom seems to
be a "lowest common denominator" within which other value systems can exist.
A socialist community could exist as a subset within an "anarcho-capatalist world."
Typically, an anarcho-capatalist community would never be tolerated as a subset
under a socialist/communist/facist regime. There is historical evidence for this.
There are certain memes that clearly do not permit co-existance with other memes. For example, certain
sects of radical Islamic fundamentalism promote that all people must embrace their
meme. Otherwise they should be killed. This could be considered a type of "killer
meme" - a meme that attempts to not only promote itself, but destroy all others. (And
NO, I don't consider that trait inherent in the definition of a meme.) (So far as I know, the
term 'killer meme' was coined by Howard Bloom in his book "The Lucifer Principle.")
Contrast this with what I wrote above about an open marketplace of memes. Killer
memes are typically very dangerous. Although I don't know what the best way to deal
with them might be.
Since it is likely that there will always be competing memes, it is also likely that there
will always be competing ethics/morals - relative or not.
I don't claim this to be the best of solutions. I certainly don't have "THE" answer. As I
said at the beginning of my post, this is a dificult question. These are just some of my
thoughts, and one possible starting point for a solution. What better solutions can we
come up with?
Regarding the first 'posters' statement at the top of this message: "If rationality is not
wedded to truth then it is clearly irrationality."
In order to respond to that I would have to ask you what your definitions of "rationality"
and "truth" are. My
definition of "truth" is a 100% accurate perception of "reality." (And yes, I do believe
that there is in fact an "absolute reality," and that it is "out there". But I also believe
that everyone has thier individual "construction" or perception of "reality" which is
incomplete and can include incorrect information. Based upon my empirical
observations/testing I believe that certain aspects of this
"reality out there" are static, and that others are dynamic. No human or transhuman
that I know of has evolved enough to have an "absolutely" 100% accurate perception
of "reality" (ie omniscience). And since certain parts of this "reality" are changing
constantly this would have to be an ongoing process.)
Nietzsche's opinion was that since everyones perception of "reality" is merely an
approximation of that "absolute reality," all 'truths' or 'knowledge' are/is a form of 'useful fiction.'
A sort of a pragamatic self deceit. His opinion was that when these ideas or 'useful
fictions' stop producing desired results they should be thrown out and new "useful
fictions" should be created of adopted. Hence he came up wth the aphorisms like "question
everything" as tools to help with this. He also pointed out that these "useful fictions" frequently
become seen as dogmatic absolutes, even long after they have ceased being useful.
For example, this has occured in the field of physics. First you had Aristotles physics.
Then you had Galileos physics, but he was labled a heretic for quite some time, until
some of his ideas were finally accepted, and Aristotles rejected. Then along came
Einstein ... etc ...
Another possible future example: at this point in the evolution of "our"
(meaning human/transhuman) knowledge, many people
believe Einstein's idea that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. This
is reasonable based upon the information "we" currently have. But some future
information may "paint a bigger picture" about "the way things are". This new
perspective might then open up other new possibilities which we did not "see" before. Such
as traveling faster than the speed of light. (I hope so; the speed of light is too
slow :-)
One working definition of rationalsim: "using logic to make decisions based upon
empirical data and experiential results". How's that for a def? :-) Not the only or best
definition, but good enough for now.
So I would say that "rationality" IS wedded to the "truth." The problem lies in what you
consider to be "truth." Approximations are not black or white, they are grey. So things
are not so easily put into the "rationality box" or the "irrationality box" - depending on
the quality of your perceptions/information. You could call this the "argument from
Fuzzyness." (I would really recommend Kosko's "Fuzzy Logic" for more on this).
"So far as mathematics apply to reality, they are not certain. And so far as mathematics are
certain, they do not apply to reality." -- Einstein
(I'm quoting this from memory - I couldn't find the reference so, I may have it a little off.)
Feedback appreciated (no flames please).
Sin,
Jason
Temporary email address: PaR@NU-WORLD.com (new one coming soon!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:48:53 MST