The Relativist's Paradox

This is taken from a post on the Sokal* Hoax over at Winds of Change: as a commenter by the name "Brian H." points out, if one genuinely believes that everything is relative, that there are no facts beyond dispute, and that there is no basis for passing judgements that are universally binding, then one's own position must also be falsified, as what it amounts to is saying "this sentence is a lie"; for if everyone's judgement is as good as anyone else's on any issue, then my judgement that there are objective facts is just as worthwhile as the claim that they don't exist.

*Irritatingly, consistently misspelled "Sokol."

Comments

[Kenji]

I am not sure if I understand why this is a paradox. The first principle of a relativist is: "Everything is relative." The worldview of a relativist depends on the integrity of this first principle. So, if you introduce another, principle that is inconsistent with this first principle (i.e., "Everything is not relative"), then obviously, the worldview of a relativist collapses. What's paradoxical about this?

[Frank McGahon]

The paradox applies to that "first principle" that "everything is relative". This implies that one person's first principle of everything being relative is no more valid or "true" than the next person's first principle that everything is not relative. The unexamined assumption of the relativist is that some special exemption applies to his own assertions which doesn't apply to anyone else's.

[Abiola Lapite]

"The unexamined assumption of the relativist is that some special exemption applies to his own assertions which doesn't apply to anyone else's."

Yes, that's exactly the problem.

[kenji]

I consider myself to be a relativist, but I feel that you are attacking a caricature. Any normative worldview requires a set of principles to judge the world, and relativism is no different. How often do you encounter a relativist who thinks that there is a "special exemption" for him or her?

[Abiola Lapite]

"How often do you encounter a relativist who thinks that there is a "special exemption" for him or her?"

Anytime one opens up his or her mouth to say that "everything is relative"; if it's true, then even the claim that "everything is relative" is relative ...

[Kenji]

I realize now that my previous post was unclear---What I meant was how often do you meet a relativist who does not think that his or her worldview rests on an absolutist claim? (I thought this is what Frank McGahon was getting at for the reference to the "special exemption".) I am happy to acknowledge that the claim "everything is relative" itself is an absolutist principle. But any worldview needs to start with a set of irreducible principles, and I find the irreducible principles of relativism to be politically less problematic than many other belief systems (Christianity, to name one).

[Abiola Lapite]

"I am happy to acknowledge that the claim "everything is relative" itself is an absolutist principle. But any worldview needs to start with a set of irreducible principles"

If the irreducible principle upon which one's worldview is founded implies that there are no irreducible principles, then I'd say one has a serious problem. What allows the "everything is relative" crowd to excerpt their own claim from the domain of applicability of their maxim? This is as clearcut a case of the liar's paradox as they come.

[Kenji]

Let me try to understand what you are saying. Suppose that one accepts an irreducible principle, Principle A, with which to judge the world. What you are saying is that it is inappropriate to accept such a principle unless one applies Principle A to Principle A to make sure that it works. This is where you lose me. Why? If it's irreducible, then by definition, its validity cannot be tested by itself. What one can do, however, is to criticize this worldview or the principles on which it is built by showing another irreducible principle that is not part of the worldview built on Principle A.

So, to be more concrete---Principle A, for a relativist, is: "Everything is relative." Your analytical approach is to criticize relativism by making Principle A no longer irreducible and test it within a framework of another worldview that has a first principle that is inconsistent with Principle A: "Everything is not relative." I think this is an important examination to which any belief system should be subject (as no assumption should be left unexamined). However, this criticism does not illuminate any logical shortcoming in the world of relativists.

[Abiola Lapite]

""Everything is relative." Your analytical approach is to criticize relativism by making Principle A no longer irreducible and test it within a framework of another worldview that has a first principle that is inconsistent with Principle A: "Everything is not relative.""

Er, no, wrong. I am attempting to take at face value the claim that everything is relative - all values, all claims to truth, everything.

It would be one thing to claim that nearly everything other than principle X is true, but that isn't the claim that is usually bandied about; what we do hear from garden-variety relativists is a claim in which the universal quantifier "everything" is used without any qualifications whatsoever, but once the claim is taken at face value, then it applies to itself as well, and cannot have the univeral scope that it makes claims to, making it a falsehood. It really is as simple as that.

The different, qualified claim that "everything is relative (other than the claim that everything is relative)", while having the merit of not being self-falsifying, nevertheless meets with an insurmountable difficulty: how is such a claim justified when nothing else can be taken as an objective truth? If I reject the assertion, how can those who accept me convince me that they're right, when they have no other axioms to draw upon? And if those who make such a claim cannot convince others of the rightness of it, what is the point of making a statement which is an exercise in pointlessness?

[kenji]

" . . . how is such a claim justified when nothing else can be taken as an objective truth?"

But this is a problem with any normative system, and I do not see this to be a particular defect for relativism.

"And if those who make such a claim cannot convince others of the rightness of it, what is the point of making a statement which is an exercise in pointlessness?"

It is impossible to convince others of the rightness of any normative system without some kind of "leap of faith" in the end. Isn't this why the atheists and theists have not convinced and will never convince the other side of the rightness of their own views?

All we can do is imagine what the possible normative systems are, understand their political/moral implications, select a normative system that we agree with, and live responsibly.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"But this is a problem with any normative system, and I do not see this to be a particular defect for relativism."

No, other normative systems allow for the idea of objectively true claims. They start with the idea that some claims are true and then spend their time fighting about which claims are true. Relativism attempts to make an absolute statement that absolute statements are not possible. When it introduces the exception, we are left asking: "Why do you believe that is the only exception?"

Furthermore I don't understand why relativists bother engaging in argument. They aren't right and their opponents can't be wrong, so why bother?

[Shai]

even if the argument doesn't eat its tail, "everything is relative" is one of the least perspicuous, uncommitted statements in public discourse, which is why it's used so often to explain away...

"paints with a broad brush and thinks with one too" seems relevant.

[Shai]

well "objective" is one of those frequently abused and misused words too. it turns on a defect in our ontology, and causes a lot of confusion about the authority of ethical statements. but that discussion is for another day.

[Kenji]

I keep feeling that we are talking past each other. There are different brands of relativism, and we may not be all talking about the same brand.

All I want to say is that all normative systems start with a set of first principles that are assumed to be absolute. Even as a relativist, I believe I am NOT exempt from this basic fact. So, one of my first principles is: "Everything is relative," or to put it more precisely, as Abiola did, "Everything is relative (other than the claim that everything is relative)." (I did not think it was necessary to include this qualification because the absoluteness of first principles is usually given.)

I also want to say that, as a relativist, I engage in argument because, while I do not think it is possible to claim that one normative system is better than another, I can acknowledge the political implication of choosing one normative system over another. For example, I reject the Christian ethical system not because I do not believe in the Christian god, but because I do not like its political implication (e.g., patriarchical tendency, democratization of desire, heterosexual imperialism, and so on)

[Robin Burk]

You're right about the mis-spelling. I've been having some vision problems post-Lasik & while my spellchecker works on common nouns, it doesn't know names, unfortunately.

Sorry for the irritation, hope you enjoyed the thread.

[Abiola Lapite]

Ah, didn't know about the vision problem. No offense intended, I assure you.

[Won Joon CHoe]

Kenji,

The problem I found with your position is that deconstructionism (or historicism--which is really the fountain of deconstructionism) claims to be a theory of knowledge or an epistemology, just like modern natural science. It is not primarily a moral system such as Christianity.

[Kenji]

"The problem I found with your position is that deconstructionism (or historicism--which is really the fountain of deconstructionism) claims to be a theory of knowledge or an epistemology, just like modern natural science. It is not primarily a moral system such as Christianity."

That's a good point, and I see now why we were talking past each other. So, to the extent that my brand of deconstructionism/historicism/relativism is a political/moral theory, I may not hold the most orthodox view.