Not sure why this got removed from 196lemmy…blahaj.zone but it would be real nice if moderation on Lemmy gave you some sort of notification of what you did wrong. Like an automatic DM or something

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s a completely wrong and stupid definition of relativism. Either because the book is wrong, or (and I’ll grant this is a possibility, because it happens a lot and it’s why the whole field of philosophy should be killed with fire) the ivory tower academic definition has gone so far beyond reality that it’s just completely absurd, and can be safely ignored as the ravings of a lunatic.

    Either way, it’s a straw man. Just in the 2nd case, there’s a small group of batshit insane losers who actually believe the straw man is a real man, and they talk with it and have tea parties and shit. And get offended when you point out that it’s made of straw and they should get mental help.

    • Poplar?@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is the definition Ive found people use when they bring up cultural relativism. Whether informally with stuff like “you cant judge them, its just their culture” or when more fleshed out. As far as I can tell, no, ethicists for and against cultural relativism are discussing something quite in touch with reality.

      The author is an important figure in metaethics, its much more likely theres something you missed than him being wrong about a basic definition in a field he is an expert in.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Philosophy is weird and unique like that. The more of an expert someone is in a field, the more likely they are to be completely out of touch with reality.