Relativism, Fallibilism, and the Need for Interpretive Charity

Abstract

Abstract‘Relativists' and ‘absolutists' about truth often see their own camp as promoting virtues, such as open-mindedness and intellectual humility, and see the opposing camp as fostering vices, like closed-mindedness and arrogance. Relativism is accused of fostering these vices because it entails that each person’s beliefs are automatically right for the person who holds them. How can we be humble or open-minded if we cannot concede that we might be wrong? Absolutism is accused of fostering these vices because the view is seen as entailing certainty. This also seems to preclude us from conceding that we could be wrong. However, no relativist defends the Protagorean version of relativism that entails infallibilism. And no absolutist posits infallible certainty. Fallibilism really is a precondition of various virtues, but both camps take themselves to be defending fallibilist positions against opponents who they take to be committed to infallibilism. Philosophers may inadvertently end up promoting precisely the sort of infallibilism they oppose by creating a false dichotomy and caricaturing the opposing camp. This underscores the importance of interpretive charity in both academic and public debate.

Value Of Sacred Monuments in Social Sciences and Art Sciences – Theory and Practice

“…23 He preached the maxim: Man is the measure of all things', 24,25 which led to the claim that value is the result of subjective sensations and depends on one's relationship to someone or something. 26,27 For many years, there has been a debate around the essence of value, its types, sources of its creation, measurement, and valuation. The age-old nature of this discussion proves that this is a very difficult category and has an abstract nature in relation to reality.…”