Philosophy & Rationality - can it be Relative too? - FINAL battle - (O'Grady 7.6)

Can there be different rationalities? Who would even think that? Well arguments come from a variety of fields such sociology, anthropology, or even certain feminist theories…Philosopher Paul O’Grady presents his core conception of rationality that he defends against claims of relative rationalities.
This video is the final battle O’Grady will have though I will do one more after this covering my response to him. This video took a long time and a lot of extra work - Please do try to support!
Please support me on
If you like my work do follow
Twitter:
https:/ philobattle
To support me
patreon.com/Drecom
or
paypal.me/DrecomInc
If you are reading this  I mean shouldn’t you SUBSCRIBE then?
LINKS-
If you would like to start this playlist / series from the beginning click here!
EPISODE 7 - O’Grady
• Relativism - the power...
The playlist will give you links to all the other videos in this series - and the Kirk Links are below
EPISODE 6 - Kirk
• True-For-Me KIRK Episo...
But for the Kuhn Video - ( the science videos) check these out
Kuhn’s video
• KUHN! Philosophy Battl...
Why Kuhn’s philosophy lead to the issue of relativism being so important in our journey
• Philosophers Vs Sociol...
CHAPTERS
0:00 - Introduction and Recap
5:00 - Kind request
6:50 - Alternative Rationality outline
8:10 - Barnes & Bloor Sociology for relative rationality
12:17 - Hopi and Azande Anthropology for relative rationality
17:22 - Feminism for Relative Rationality Code
22:22 - Theology for Relative Rationality
24:51 - It's not really about Rationality though
28:14 - Core Rationality - Universal absolute rationality
37:57 - Is there real opposition to CORE
47:31 - Initial Objections
51:31 - The Causal Challenge
1:07:22 - The Cultural Challenge
1:20:09 - The Incommensurability Challenge
1:35:14 - Conclusion
-----------------
MUSIC:
Kevin Macleod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
Screen saver
Water Lilly
Elf Meditation
Infinite Perspective
Non-stop
------------
Works Cited / Reference list
O’Grady, Paul. Relativism. McGill-Queens University Press, 2002.
Kirk, Robert. Relativism and Reality: A Contemporary Introduction. 1999.
Phillips, Patrick J.J.. The Challenge of Relativism. Continuum, 2007.
#Philosophy
#Rationality
#Relativism
#Feminism
#Azande
PHILOSOPHERS.... Keeep it up, yeah!

[@Cogenful]

These videos are first class. Fantastic presentation, I love the pace, and they are inspiring wonderful reflections. Thank you for all of your hard work in creating these.

[@Opposite271]

I think the Radical Relativist has a few main problems.
The problem of true absolutism:
If every proposition is true relative to a framework then if there is a framework in which absolutism is true then this would imply that there are universal truths, otherwise absolutism would per definition not be true, not even in that framework.
The relativist can now claim that there is no framework in which absolutism is true, (not even a framework in which there is a framework in which absolutism is true) but this would limit relativism and it would mean that not everything is relative. (Absolutism is not true in any framework is a universal truth)
The problem of justification:
If all justifications only work relative to a framework then all justifications for radical relativism only works in one framework and therefore another framework can be used to justify absolutism. It would therefore make more sense for a radical relativist to be a radical sceptic instead of a relativist.
The problem of solipsistic absolutism:
It is possible to take a solipsist perspective from which there is only one perspective (the solipsist perspective) and therefore there is no room for alternative perspectives and therefore no room for relativism.
This would be an example of an absolutist framework in which the relativist framework would collapse into absolutism.
The problem of consequences:
Radical relativists and radical sceptics share the problem that believes do have consequences. It does matter if you believe that there is such a thing as man made climate change or if you believe that you will die if you jump from a skyscraper.
The radical relativist can’t decide his position on the basis of a universal core rationality. If he makes the decision to believe in anything then he has to admit that climate change denial, jumping from a skyscraper and expecting not to die and absolutism is completely rational from the view of an alternative rationality.

[@exalted_kitharode]

Thanks.

[@gabbiewolf1121]

Do you plan on making more videos if you get more support? :o
I'm really loving this O'Grady series so far :D

[@ashkenassassin7219]

Rationality can be relative Yes in fact you can have different logics in Logical pluralism where there can be different accounts of logical consequence, logical connectives and validity

[@gabbiewolf1121]

He addresses this in his video about logic. In that video he gives an account of O'Grady's claim that when we evaluate or assert claims from one or multiple different logics we still must use the law of contradiction to not defeat ourselves. This is because the law of contradiction arises from the nature of assertion itself. To assert things implies by its meaning to deny the negation of what is being asserted. If the negation is asserted by the proponent of their earlier assertion then they deny that original assertion which is self defeat. For example if I assert that "at time t the sky is blue" and then later on that "at time t the sky is not blue" then I have defeated myself, even if I was using an alternative inconsistent or para-consistent logic to derive both of those assertions.
O'Grady's position is that there is room for relativity in logics but that as soon as they are compared or conclusions are asserted they can be judged at the higher order of the core of rationality.

[@leonmills3104]

Interesting this is a pretty long video first to note here is that even if truth is relative and there is no shared rationality to fix it doesn't follow that they can't judge other frameworks all that is required is that they have some criteria or set of things which is going to depend on their framework but more importantly it doesn't follow that all perspectives are equally valid in fact the relativist is licensed by there own position to make this move since by their own view it follows of course this doesn't mean that they have have made a universal statement .The judgement that all perspectives are equally valid is itself a perspective that isn't a form of relativism this gets lost in the debates about relativism them making the judgement that relativism is superior to absolutism comes from within their perspective and hence why relativism isn't silenced but more importantly is that the relativist needn't agree with the absolutist all the relativist needs to do is point out something that the absolutist/objectivist accepts that follows from his view so on this point relativist can challenge absolutist since there could be something that his entailed on his view it is not required that a premise is universal and objective all that is required is that it's accepted. On the infinite regress objection this is not a good one as I've already said but relativism does not need to be understood in such a way a more sophisticated version would be to separate ones analysis of truth from the statement and so a regress doesn't occur on this version also a regress can be made for the absolutist position it's not normally stated but yes this objection cuts both ways .I keep stepping over this fork that you have in the way, on the note of rationality in so far as rationality concerns universal principles of deductive inference not because their relative but because none exist there are no such principles as detailed by Gillian russell. Rationality comes down to what is permissible for an actor to believe this is going to be based on the background facts that is when we believe an inference that inference is going to be warranted based on the background facts we have.

[@ashkenassassin7219]

36:19 Rationality
The LNC being a part of what is rationality has been challenged and certainly by graham priest I don't think that rationality requires such a law LNC but yeah one can be rational that is going to be based on your broader epistemological background
40:20 57:45 AJ's fork self defeating, infinite regress, They can't really deny or oppose anything
*Infinite regress relativists can just flip it around and ask is that Relatively true? to the absolutist for every statement made from the absolutist the objection presumes an absolutist account of truth and hence begs the question next Holding that truth is relative there isn't anything self-defeating about that, also the inability to oppose another position is not self defeating to begin with there are other views in philosophy where a position cannot be opposed/ruled out but that doesn't make the position true in fact some of the ones that I can think of take for example ontic nihilism alethic nihilism my favorite is trivialism the view that all prop are true this position cannot be opposed either but that doesn't make it true if you're going to put this forward as an objection that's a pretty weak fork you have there in the stupid animation it's pretty frail*

[@gabbiewolf1121]

I think you skipped to the end of the series. If you want a defense of the absolutist account of truth then you should watch the video on truth that is taken as watched prior to this video. Additionally the criticism of relativism here is not that absolutism cannot be opposed but rather that relativism cannot oppose any outside views without committing self defeat. I should also note that the video creator here never claimed that silence is self defeat, only that it's a bad position to be in because presumably you want to make some kind of claim at all if you're doing philosophy rather than something that doesn't necessarily involve assertions like an unrelated hobby.

[@gabbiewolf1121]

Maybe you should be careful about how accurately you frame your opponent's arguments before you call them stupid ;3

[@gabbiewolf1121]

Also it's unproductive to use insults like "stupid" if you take the strong relativist position because any opponent can easily dismiss your insults as being local to you. You may as well save your breath and typing.

[@gabbiewolf1121]

It also gives the impression that you believe in intelligence and rationality in an absolute sense. Even if you really mean those insults in a way relative to your system of judgement you should probably save yourself the typing and breath to save your opponents the confusion

[@ashkenassassin7219]

@@gabbiewolf1121 I wasn't interested in watching the series on this and I dont know why you think relativism cannot oppose outside views or whatever that means there is nothing stopping relativists from opposing views in fact from a relativist perspective we already do that's why relativists say "that's true for you not for me" or something along those lines which relativist have license to use or say since it's a consequence of their view that's straight up denial also relativist can also oppose a view if something is shown to follow from that view that is contrary to that view.