Relativism

of these articles describes the philosophical thinking direction of the relativism. Further meanings find you in the article relativity. The article relativity theory describes Einstein's theories to the relativity.

Relativism is a philosophical thinking direction, which assumes it no absolute truthand no absolute ethical values gives. There are similar thoughts in the Nihilismus and in the Skeptizismus.

]

organization relativistic theories is the validitydependent on statements in principle on conditions, which can stress for their part no general validity. Therefore relativistic positions can be divided according to which class is regarded of requirements for validity as relative and which kind is brought by conditions in notice. According to with ita multiplicity of different kinds of play of relativistic thinking results possible combinations:

The meaning relativism (linguistic relativism) accepts that linguistic expressions are understandable only in the connection of the language, in which it is formulated. One assumes the languages or language familiesinto other languages in principle or partially untranslatable are. The truth relativism (epistemischer relativism) again holds the opinion the fact that there is no absolute truth but depends the truth of the observer. Each conviction (religions, ideologies, sciences, conceptions of the world etc.) builds on dogmas and axiomsup. Since these dogmas and axioms are doubted by the relativists, he finds no more absolute truth. Finally the value relativism (ethical relativism) is the view that normative yardsticks of human acting universally cannot be justified, but at the most within a certain culture (Culture relativism) and/or a certain historical epoch (historical relativism) are actually valid.

history

the increasing acquaintance with strange peoples and the insight into the Pluralität of religious conceptions, conceptions of the world and local customs, accompanying with it, andCustoms already led in the antique Sophistik to the development of relativistic views. Thus about the “Homo Mensura sentence “ of the Protagoras was already interpreted of its contemporary (God-faithful, aristokratischen) adversaries as a sign of an extreme epistemischen relativism: “Humans are the measurealler Dinge, der Seienden für ihr Sein und der Nicht-Seienden für ihr Nicht-Sein". With the conceptual distinction of nature (“physis”) and human statute (“nomos”) besides the basis for an ethical relativism was not created, according to that moral standards and lawson nature, but on human agreement and thus contingent is based, i.e. both culture relative and historically variable is.

Neuere kritische Quellenforschung geht allerdings davon aus, dass der Homo-Mensura-Satz des Protagoras wie auch andere überlieferte erkenntnistheoretische Positionen der Sophisten instead of in the sense of the today's (Platonic) Relativismusdefinition rather in the sense of the modern system theory and/or (radicals) the constructionalism to understand are.

The modern relativism developed in particular since that 18. Century. Impressed of the discovery and investigationnew continents and the increasing number of reports on a journey from far countries scholars developed as for example Herder, Humboldt or Hamann in critical distance from the universalistic reason term of the clearing-up of beginnings from speaking, culture and Rationalitätstheorien with relativistic implications. The triumphant advance thatmodern sciences created the world-descriptive conditions for arising a multiplicity of relativistic theories in the process 19. Century. Thus for instance historicalscientific historicism went out with the historical limitation of all human life expressions, during bio logism and psychology mash the relativistic opinionclose put that human thinking and holding back were to be understood only more than expression of the biological and/or psychological constitution of humans.

In 20. Century explicitly relativistic positions, in particular by Evans Pritchard and others in the Ethnologie , became by Benjamin LeeWhorf and other one in linguistics (Sapir Whorf hypothesis) and of Thomas's S. Boldly and Paul Feyerabend in pos temp iris tables the science theory, develops. In the context of contemporary philosophy point above all the constructionalism, the Poststrukturalismus and the Pragmatismus oftenrelativistic tendencies up.

discussion

the standard objection against the epistemischen relativism exists in the proof of its selbstreferentiellen inconsistency: If all statements are only relatively valid, this concerns also the relativistic statement. Thus cannot this more validas their negation to be regarded. If one would assume the epistemischen relativism is universally valid, the relativist commits a performativen self contradiction (Karl Otto Apel, Jürgen Habermas, Vittorio Hösle): The propositionale content of its statement stands in the contradictionto the speech act, which it carries out. Authors such as Hösle and Apel see a last last one of necessary truths in this argument.

The linguistic relativism is criticized among other things for the fact that it, in order to occupy its thesis on examples from the concernedLanguage or to detailed language comparisons to fall back must, which would be not at all possible for it under its own conditions. Therefore argues among other thingsDonald Davidson that the term of the language already implies translatableness, since it gives otherwise no possibility somewhat at allals Sprache zu identifizieren.

The ethical relativism is often regarded as morally despicable or politically dangerously. It doubts for example the universal validity of the human rights. Further it makes the moral condemnation of inhumaner cultural practices (as for example mutilating more womanlikeGenital organs) on a fundamental level not possibly. Trailers of the ethical relativism argue that their opponents would be subject to the naturalistischen false conclusion. A representative of the ethical relativism can very probably have and for these occur moral convictions. It is however conscious itself thatother persons and cultures other conceptions have. In this sense the ethical relativism is not an ethical position, but must as theoretical position on a metaethischen level be understood. Against the ethical relativism in particular realism , those argue(New) Scholastik and the nature right. These do not deny under any circumstances that ethical relativists also ethical and/or. moral convictions have and/or. to practice can. However they point out that the individual convictions contradict themselves frequently and thus cannot (all) be true.In addition go also the ethical relativist into a self contradiction, there it - ethical - the demand after a completely unsanktionierten choice of ethical views and ways of life as universally valid truth represents.

see also

• realism
• Existentialismus
• inductivism
• Falsifikationismus
• Anti-relativism

literature

• Meiland, J.W., M.Krausz (eds.), “Relativism, Cognitive and moral”, Notre Dame Ind., London 1982.
• Get-read, M., S. Lukes (eds.), “Rationality and Relativism”, Oxford 1982.

Web on the left of

• entry (English) in the Stanford Encyclopedia OF Philosophy (inclusive Literaturangaben)
• Übersichten und Bibliographien