Professor Destroys Relativism in 4 Minutes!

An argument for objective truth found in an objective reality.
Without a common reality there can be no common truth and no true communion between people.

Timothy Fortin Ph.D. | Seton Hall University

[michaeljoseph]

Have you ever stoped and realized that the statement, “Truth is relative” is an absolute statement?

[shukrifr]

“Communication becomes impossible” as if misunderstandings of terms based upon life experience doesn’t already exist

[silentgrove]

For several years now I have been living with the clear sense that no one understands what I am talking about. They hear the words however the deeper sub text of my communication with them is lost. This video looks into that window of human experience. There is a way out, it is to invest in understanding of the other that they have a different world view and try to discern that via some kind of reflective communication. Without this as the speaker suggests there is no intimacy. If intimacy is to be found it would be in the desire and conscious effort to move beyond this seperation.

[rarnoldk]

“God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;
‭‭Romans‬ ‭3:4‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[Swifter]

So where's the argument against relativism?

[luamfernandez]

Solipisism, yep...
Accept that...
Just because it's uncomfortable, doesn't mean it is false...
We are already in a battle ground of subjective expirence...
That's why there's so many debates...

[ThethHooh]

I wonder if this trend towards relativism isn’t contributing to the current mental health epidemic. When there’s no collective “truth” to cling to, it places tons of pressure on the individual to find a truth that works for them. I know I’ve felt like I have to “play God” to try and make sense of life, and that gets exhausting.

[Dman]

This man has a big brain .. I yield to God as I know His reality will be the greatest and that is my truth.

Good day to you sir !

[Erik-kolh]

This explains so much history and current events it is mind-blowing.

[Azariy]

It's my opinion, but I disagree.
1. Relativism doesn't (or shouldn't) mean isolating yourself. It should make you realize how to better understand other people. The best way to debunk someone's reality is to find common ground, that's what I think. Instead of trying to force an "objective" truth on a person and failing because they deny it, you should just find common ground.
2. The fact that relativism may cause communication & relationship problems doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's true that basically all moral principles and even logical axioms can be simply denied. *There's nothing you can do against an interlocutor who doesn't use logic and doesn't share any common ground with you.*

[kevincurrie-knight]

A few points of contention:

1. That you don't like the potential consequences of something is not a good argument for that something's incorrectness as a position.
2. Reality doesn't measure or determine anything. Humans measure and humans determine things. Thus, even if we are living in the same reality - relativists tend not to dispute that we do - we may measure or determine (or interpret) that reality differently. And in cases where we do, what relativists say is that we can't settle those disputes by appealing to the common reality, precisely because that would be circular: we already disagree on our interpretations.
3. If relativism is right, how can we resolve disagreements? Intersubjectively. That wasn't so hard.
4. If relativism is right, it doesn't follow that we will all disagree on everything. It just means that when we do, there may be no singularly correct criteria or standard we can point to to non-question-beggingly resolve those disagreements.
5. It may be that there are singularly and objectively correct ways of interpreting the world. But it just so happens that there are many points where we differ widely on what those ways are. And when that happens, it seems that all of us believe that our ways are the objective ones. The better interpretation might be that while there is a single common reality, we all interpret it differently and are wont to see our interpretations - because they are ours - as the objectively correct ones. Naive realism.

[MrBelascoaranShayne]

What are you talking about? He didn't prove sh*t. He didnt destroyed relativism neither. He just concluded relativism is a pessimistic way of look at life and that he PREFERS the other point of view. But he didnt destroy anything at all. In any case he just said is painful to live as a relativist but thats all. Something being painful is not the same as being false.

[acommonman]

If we are being honest, the professor didn't really *debunk* the subjectivity/ relativity of reality as much as claim it's *better* if it wasn't subjective. And I think we would all agree with that.

However, the case is that all those things that he claims will happen (people disagreeing and clashing with each other because of misunderstandings as a result of miscommunication) *if* reality was subjective, is happening right now everywhere in the world. So in a way, his theory itself proves that reality is subjective to the observer.

[belovedwarmachine]

How did he destroy it? Seemed to me like he affirmed it? Human history religious wars, colonization assimilation, imperialism, affirms that in the event of two, one will ultimately always yield to another

[ken]

For me, the good professor has perfectly described the reality of the world we live in. He explains tribalism, conflict, and the misunderstandings that cause all the pain and suffering we see in the world. He has not destroyed relativism, he has simply pointed out that this way of seeing things dominates the politics, religions, and ideologies that everyone I know adheres to.

[johnramsko]

Profoundly stupid argument, this person never even attempted to understand the argument relativists make, which is not a good example for either position, but for intellectual honesty and the principle of charity.

[KatyWantsToGo]

The truth is whatever you think it is until you change your mind, then it’s something else…what a realm

[generalralph]

There is a trick in this monologue that I wish people could clearly understand. You could call it, relentlessly pursuing a line of thought to its extreme.

You heard him say that if truth is relative “communication would be impossible, ” and everyone would be in conflict and intimacy would be impossible. If this sounds plausible to you, consider this opposite extreme: If truth is absolute, everyone automatically understands everyone else without need for communication, and you must always agree with the majority on everything or else you will be a villain and an outlaw. Does that sound reasonable? Of course, this doesn’t prove truth is relative, it only shows that his argument is not a good one.

Looking at the real world, we see distinct societies emerge from shared experiences, and these societies wage war and blend into each other at the edges among people who share more than one set of beliefs. This is exactly what we would expect to see if truth had equally absolute and relative aspects. We would expect no two people to be exactly in agreement. We would expect people to get along on the basis of shared ideas and to be in conflict on the basis of their disagreements. And we would not expect to discover one “correct” society among thousands of wrong ones.

In fact, intimacy is only possible due to differences of opinion. If we were all the same, intimacy would be so boring that it would never last. He said intimacy is ruined by conflict. This is something only a chivalrous romantic would say. Relationships are defined by agreement and disagreement. Love is a daily uphill challenge, not a downhill tumble. Relationships are preserved by emotional distress as much as by satisfaction. In reality, the what matters for the purpose of procreation is that being with ‘the other’ produces strong emotions, not that those emotions are always pleasant.

And his trick is more pernicious than that. He uses the term “relativism” by itself. He doesn’t clarify whether he is speaking of morality or truth. This is a sort of expertise among these people. If we are speaking of morality, then we instinctively understand that our circumstances change our morality within a framework of an absolute standard of right behavior. If we are speaking of truth, we understand that an individual being is constrained by the world around it, and defined by its own decisions, within the broader context of a universe that exists in an absolute sense. If this weren’t the case, there would not be different species.

I wish I could argue this with the professor directly but I suspect he would avoid such an encounter. After all, he thinks he’s absolutely correct and that I am absolutely wrong. So there is no need for discussion, from his point of view.

[lexruptor]

So relevant to today. Thanks for posting

[stefos]

Tell this to the New Agers who say "I don't believe in dogmas" and say "It's all Love &