From Plato's "Allegory of the Cave", I learned about perception and the concept of the way we perceive things isn't the way everyone is going to perceive them. Everybody has their own truth; everybody has their own reality. The people in the cave knew nothing except what they saw on the walls, and so that became their reality. One of the cave people is "enlightened" and shown the "true reality", but that doesn't mean that the reality of the cave people is any less "true". In terms of wisdom and knowing, it doesn't mean that they are any less intelligent. In terms of sight, vision, and blindness, the cave people were not blind to the reality. They were blind to a reality, but there can be more than one. They saw and learned what they could in their own reality. They didn't know less that the people who were free; they knew different.
In our modern world, different people have different realities too. We have different concepts of reality in different places in the world, within different cultures or religions, and within different groups or clubs or any kind. No reality is untrue, and no reality is the "correct" one. Everyone lives within their own reality, and they are all equally true. It all depends on what you see and what you know.
My cave drawing represents the two contrasting realities of technology and nature.
.jpg)
Love the cave drawing - thank you... Question - are you aware of something called moral relativism? Or, cultural relativism? Or epistemic relativism? These relativistic theories are what you are resting your thinking on here. That what is right for you is not necessarily right for another; what is good to you is not necessarily good for all. In TOKland, relativism is generally discouraged, as it has many weaknesses:
ReplyDeleteHere’s why:
Moral relativists can’t accuse others of wrongdoing.
Relativists can’t complain about the problem of evil.
Relativists can’t place blame or accept praise.
Relativists can’t make charges of unfairness or injustice.
Relativists can’t improve their morality.
Relativists can’t hold meaningful moral discussions.
Relativists can’t promote the obligation of tolerance.
What do you think? Is it true that if everything is relative, that there is no more discussing to be had?
(btw - your response is actually very interesting and thoughtful - I'm not saying you are "bad" :) This is the stuff of a TOK class, to be asked to dig a little more deeply... and one day in class we will all talk about relativism...)