2 edition of Epistemological relativism found in the catalog.
Includes bibliographical references (p. -124) and index.
|Statement||African Odyssey Publisher|
|Publishers||African Odyssey Publisher|
|The Physical Object|
|Pagination||xvi, 87 p. :|
|Number of Pages||81|
nodata File Size: 1MB.
2004, Relativism, London, New York: Rutledge. Traditional Arguments for Epistemic Relativism: The Pyrrhonian Argument One influential argument strategy under the banner of epistemic relativism takes as a starting point a famous philosophical puzzle traditionally associated with — that Epistemological relativism to say, the Pyrrhonian problematic.
The anti-relativists counter-argue that even if we grant that political tolerance is an important value, and that accepting relativism would promote it, we should never adopt philosophical views about the nature of truth or justification simply because of their assumed good moral or political consequences.
Every day new sects are created and what says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error cf 4, 14. Many versions of relativism rely on such a notion, but it is very difficult to make sense of it. In the last two chapters Democritus enters the debate. In dealing with this brand of relativism, we must take into account that its popularity was not due to epistemological, but to practical considerations.
For example, a cultural relativist about epistemic justification tells us that the truth of claims a-b varies with local cultural norms and in doing so holds that cultural norm change instances change in what one counts as knowing, justifiably believing, and so forth. Epistemological relativism this case, the proposition is true relative to a context of assessment where what Sandra knows is operative—a context in which Sandra is the evaluator—and false relative to a context of assessment where what I know is operative because I am the evaluator.
Moral Relativism The third form of relativism we discussed Epistemological relativism regarding the subject of morality. Elements of relativism emerged among the in the 5th century. ———, 1886b , The Will to Power, W. If these scholars were consistent, they would limit their studies to what is called economic history; they would deal exclusively with the past and would carefully abstain from asserting anything about the future.
6and Zeman 2019. c has also been challenged by naturalistically inclined social scientists who believe that an evolutionary or a biologically informed approach can provide a context-independent, universally applicable theoretical framework for explaining what is common to all cultures, despite their superficial differences. Moreover, these differing conceptions may be incommensurable in the sense that they are not readily amenable to comparison or inter-theoretical translation.
He considers two versions of the argument Epistemological relativism underdetermination and rejects both of them.
Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant. He opens his account by stating that our logics should depend on what we take to be the nature of the sphere to which we wish to apply our logics.
One such insight is negative, framed in terms of what relativists are Epistemological relativism united in denying. One affirms what the other denies. Then there are ethical doctrines that charge economics with ethical materialism.
Choices between different logical vocabularies also can lead to a relativized conception of logic in so far a these vocabularies play a decisive role in generating different relations of logical consequence.
Protagoras, on the other hand, believes his doctrine to be true.
Professor Lee's theme is the challenge to objective knowledge posed by Protagoras' relativistic thesis that 'Man is the measure of all things', and the responses to that challenge by Plato, Aristotle, and Democritus.