Why do people who subscribe to self-refuting skeptical philosophies still argue with others?

Question

The belief that everything is relative is obviously self-refuting, because it holds to an absolute.

However, in my experience, people who believe this (or some form of it) such as some Buddhists and atheistic materialists, or people who have an even more radical belief that permits no knowledge at all, such as nihilists, still actively resist those who suggest that there are at least some absolutes. In their discussing what reality is like and whether one idea corresponds to reality better than another idea, aren't they admitting that reality itself is an absolute and that at least one thing is absolutely knowable (a way in which reality is or is not, to which certain ideas correspond more or less closely)?

To put it another way, this very desire to show others that "some-absolute-truths-exist" is wrong seems to destroy their own "all is relative" or "nothing is knowable" positions. By taking a stance against any truth claim at all, they are making an ontological claim about what reality is not like and that this should apply globally—thus making a truth claim, admitting to at least one absolute. That seems ridiculously inconsistent, like someone going around and yelling at random passersby, "I'm not yelling at you!" and "You can't hear me yelling!"

I think that someone who believes in absolutely comprehensive global relativism (to me an impossible bit of nonsense, like square circles) has no business arguing with anyone at all. Any discussion they engage in cannot be intended to find truth together with their discussion partners, because they're either insane, lying, or the discussion was undertaken solely for their own pleasure—why else would someone who doesn't believe anything is true argue with you about whether something you think is true actually is? And pleasuring oneself in public at the expense of other people's comfort and in violation of basic human propriety (I don't know how to put this more delicately, it honestly seems like a very apt analogy) seems like a pretty reprehensible thing to do.

What kind of basis do relativists and their more extreme nihilist friends have for arguing against anything at all? And why do they seem to never, ever admit that when they do argue with others about the truth of any claim, that this is mistreatment solely in pursuit of their own offensive pleasure and amusement (since it can't be an attempt to discover truth, and their argument with the other person can't be an attempt to discredit an incorrect idea, since neither correct nor incorrect ideas exist)?

Answer 1

Your position would be reasonable against the kind of absolute relativists and radical skeptics that you describe. Unfortunately, those are only convenient straw men that are easy to refute, which is good sport for didactic purposes. Philosophers who actually hold positions so caricatured are savvy enough to nuance them so as to make them immune to self-refutation criticism. As is usually clear from the context claims like "everything is relative" and "nothing is true" are intended as "to those who believe in absolutes, everything is relative" and "to those who believe in truth, nothing is true". In other words, they are not intended as positive absolutes and truths, but rather as promises to take apart any positive proposal to the contrary, usually motivated by pessimistic induction on historical precedent, or something like that, and accompanied with general lines of attack against most typical positive proposals. In particular a radical skeptic would affirm "nothing is true" as strictly speaking false, while also rejecting any specific positive claim as false.

Such positions are not self-refuting because they decline to make any positive commitments whatsoever. But as Russell wrote in Human Knowledge, “skepticism, while logically impeccable, is psychologically impossible, and there is an element of frivolous insincerity in any philosophy which pretends to accept it”. Epistemological naturalism of Quine and falsificationism of Popper, very popular positions in philosophy of science, hold somewhat more moderately that any positive scientific claim may be false, and is subject to revision in the light of future discovery. This is substantively not that far from the "pragmatic" version of radical skepticism, albeit without its nihilistic predisposition.

While I agree that systematic nihilism is barren, if not exactly self-refuting, relativist and skeptical stances can play a fruitful role in discourse by fleshing out weaknesses and inconsistencies in positive proposals. So much so that many philosophers invoke a radical skeptic as a hypothetical interlocutor in their works to elaborate and sharpen their reasoning.

Answer 2

For Buddhists, one of the meanings of the word Dharma or Dhamma is 'universal law' (analogous to for example the Law of Gravity).

Dhamma might be equated with "things the Buddha said".

aren't they admitting that reality itself is an absolute and that at least one thing is absolutely knowable

I think "they" argue that descriptions of reality are problematic. People see reality as "name" and "form" (e.g. "that looks like an apple, I'm going to call it an apple; I like apples") ... but the ideal apple isn't the same as the real apple, a real apple might be better viewed as an impermanent heap of components (sugars etc.), and so on.

To put it another way, this very desire to show others that "some-absolute-truths-exist" is wrong seems to destroy their own "all is relative" or "nothing is knowable" positions.

Is that necessarily so? If I say "everything smells like shit" does that necessarily imply there's something which doesn't?

Also, as I mentioned, Buddhists do tend to take Buddhist dhamma as "true" (partly from personal experience and partly as a matter of faith). Some examples of dhamma are, "all conditioned things are impermanent and dissatisfactory", and "desire leads to clinging".

why else would someone who doesn't believe anything is true argue with you about whether something you think is true actually is

I can't, in this answer, speak for all people who argue.

Also you seem to be referring to specific personal experiences of yours (i.e. arguments you've had with people), which you found unpleasant. But I don't know what personal experiences you're talking about (I only know you description of those experiences...).

But to answer your question, in theory a benevolent reason why someone might argue discuss with you could be, that having a fixed view can be a cause of suffering. If I obsessed about how I really want an apple, then that desire and clinging could cause my suffering.

If I obsess about me being right and other people being wrong, then having such fixed views may make me suffer too (ditto other fixed views like obsessing about wanting alcohol, about wanting to win an argument, or about wanting to steal your property, etc.).

But as you said even clinging to Dhamma may cause suffering. What you're saying reminds me of something else. I think you're saying, "If you argue that absolute truths aren't absolutely true, isn't that contradicting yourself by making an absolute statement?"

It reminds me of this sutta: "If suffering is caused by desire, and you desire to end suffering by ending desire, isn't that contradicting yourself by desiring the end of desire?"

The belief that everything is relative is obviously self-refuting, because it holds to an absolute.

I'm not sure what you mean by "relative", by the way. If you were discussing Dhamma, a Buddhist might more conventionally say that everything (except, possibly, dhammas i.e. the aforementioned universal laws) is "conditioned" -- i.e. has a cause, arises when the causal conditions exist, and is impermanent, subject to cessation.

Some of the dhammas though seem like pretty sure-of-themselves statements to me, though -- including moral precepts like "don't kill".

So I'm not sure it's true that Buddhists argue that "everything is relative".

There is notion though that clinging to views causes suffering -- including clinging to your idea of dhamma. I think that's where the (shocking) phrase If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him! expression comes from.

I think that knowledge or belief-system is also likened to a boat: you need the boat to get safely across a river. Having reached the other side, of the river, if you think, "That was a useful boat, I'm going to carry it around with me in case I need to use it again" then the boat itself may become a burden.

Answer 3

As your quandary is framed, your conclusions cannot be faulted. However, the real issue in the area is whether there exist unique descriptions that “accurately” describe various aspects of the world/reality, or whether the accuracy/truth of any description is “relative to” a host of variables. Though the world may impact your nerve endings in certain ways, it does not describe itself. It simply is.

Answer 4

I agree entirely with **@Conifold.*

First, you are using "relativism" where you probably mean skepticism. To say something is "relative" is to say that its relational values are in fact related to some fixed "general equivalent," as in the "speed of light." It doesn't mean anything goes or nothing is true. Obviously, in any system or conceptual scheme where things are "related" to one another, as they must be, they are "relative" to something.

The question then becomes, is this "something" absolutely reliable? What is this "something," to which everything is related? Well, it could be all sort of "absolutes." It could be "energy" in physics or "money" in economics or "god" in religion or "me" in relation to "the world" or "consciousness." Or, as you suggest, the arbitrary, mysterious consensus we call "language" that must be utilized in any positive or negative claim.

So "relativism" is badly miscast in your scenario. As for the skeptic! The role of the skeptic is to continually attack whatever "center" or "absolute" or "general equivalent" has historically assumed the role of absolute "authority" or the "author" of our present world. Those who have held this throne include the Patriarch, the King, God, Money, Science, Language...etc.

When the skeptic attacks this "heir apparent," as Socrates attacked "Common Knowledge" or Hume attacked "God" and "Causality," they tend to do so not out of nihilistic glee but because they see suffering and horrors arising out of this fixation on some absolute. When Hume attacked the "truths" and certainties of his day, he did so at a time when naive students could still be, and were occasionally, hung for opinions "casting doubt" on dogmas of the Presbyterian church.

The relativist attempts to discover the present "center" to which particularities are relative. The skeptic is like a doctor who constantly tests these "centers" to see which are rotten or diseased. Be careful. Philosophy, and especially logic, invite you into an exciting world of "find the right absolute." Wisdom backs away from that excitement, with "early" and "late" Wittgenstein being the most moving example. To philosophize, I would say, is to discover the "absolute" towards which normal, daily things are "relative" and to then use all your powers to test that presumed absolutism.

Answer 5

I'm one of those people who makes arguments like that, so I can at least give you some of the points of view I am sometimes using (when they suit me).

One easy thing to point out is that "the belief everything is relative" is only self-refuting if you believe as such. Consider that someone who could say such a thing must surely suggest that language itself is relative. Maybe the word "everything" doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me. Or maybe "is" means something slightly different. It's trivial to make such claims consistent if you do not presume too many things about the language you are speaking in, although you typically pay for such consistency in other ways (such as being unable to prove anything). Is it worth it? It depends. Sometimes its nice to remind the other person of some fundamentals of linguistics which most students of linguistics know, but we often forget in day to day life.

Another reason is that not everybody presumes "truth" is the highest calling. Some value "good" independent of truth, and permit them to mix in ways that they find beneficial, but you may find distasteful. Even if we start from the assumption that your interpretation of "the belief everything is relative" is correct, they still might suggest it because they see an opportunity for good which comes at the cost of saying something which, from their perspective, is ever so slightly not true. It's far more kind than the average white lie that we accept in much of our life -- it's so kind that it even stares you straight in the face and says "you can reject this idea, simply by believing it is paradoxical." Many white lies can take a lifetime to root out. If they believe they can help you by issuing such an utterance in an argument, is it not reasonable that they may try?

I'll save the reasons you'll probably feel most comfortable with last: defenses. We live in a culture where if you admit something is true, you are automatically obligated by everyone around you to hold to that truth. They are even allowed to call you out, saying, "You believe A, but you are doing B which is not consistent with a belief in A." For someone who "believes everything is relative," the last few absolutes in their life are particularly fragile. They've intentionally jettisoned all of the easy ones. Accordingly, if you try to pin them in a corner with challenges like the one you describe in your question, many will defend it (or, sadly, they may have jettisoned one that they wish they'd kept, and they are reliant on your interaction to resolve the loss). I find the "best" do not find the need to defend in such way, because they have found something else that lets them deflect such challenges, but I will not claim to be such a person at this time.

It's also rather kind for offense. Consider for a moment, Godel's Incompleteness Theorems and Tarski's Nondefinability theorem. Within the careful confines of math, they demonstrate limitations that must exist. These are wonderfully powerful tools to win arguments, but they only work in the world of pure math. Unless I can convince you to build an argument in a formal language, Tarski's theorem isn't going to help, and Godel wont come to my rescue until your argument encompasses all of arithmetic. However, if I have a hunch that what you are describing will clarify into one of these mathematical holes, I may choose to use an odd phrasing like "everything is relative" as an act of kindness. Sure, I could sit with you, going back and forth, nailing down the exact beliefs in question into carefully structured wordings. But if I do so, and then crush it with one of those mathematical arguments, you are left with nothing. If I instead go with "everything is relative," and smile, you can take whatever part of the discussion you want, and associate the rest with me being "one of those annoying relativists." You can adapt your beliefs (relative or absolute, as you please), and maybe we will find no debate necessary when we meet again.

Of course, the belief that everything is relative has similar behaviors to other beliefs, such as those of religions and those of hard atheists. These beliefs can be used in ways which help our fellow man or woman, or they may be used in a way which puts others down. The big difference I see between those claiming "everything is relative" and beliefs such as major religions is that the major religions have more to lose, so they are quicker to encourage their members towards powerful ideals such as the golden rule. Extreme skeptics are not in the same position, so they have had less incentive to adopt such policies.

Answer 6

Skepticism, relativism and nihilism are easy positions to find yourself in when, in the search for an absolute, you have difficulty finding one. During the search, a right-thinking mind needs must learn to question everything; the immediate consequence of that is to question whether one has a mind, and whether it may or may not be right in its thinking - and what exactly is right, anyway?

Understand that what comes next is not to inflame you, so much as an illustration. I do not objectively know whether or not you actually exist the same way I seem to think I exist (which may be incorrect). I subjectively understand that you are some phenomenon that I can interact with, and in this case I value that interaction and choose to engage in that willingly (as far as I am aware). If we both look at a red object, we will (probably) agree that it is red, but I cannot know that you are seeing it exactly as I see it for the same reason I cannot describe it to a blind person.

In my subjective experience, I can see stars and planets, and I have been told many things about science that seem to hold true when I test them - someone gave me a piece of paper and I was informed that I was an engineer. So be it, but I haven't time to check every theorem - I end up ultimately having to believe things called "consensus" and "reproducibility" on things I have not personally witnessed, but I subjectively value that because it seems to work (most of the time - I'm told that relativity may not have been exactly right).

Reasoning like this is less about finding answers and more about finding questions, with the basic understanding that, no matter what I say, I am going to get something wrong (including now). It doesn't have to be about refuting anything at all - but when everything is being questioned all of the time it can (subjectively) seem like it.

If you find an absolute truth in your travels, that's marvellous! Be sure to share it with me so I can question it thoroughly.

Answer 7

I should begin by saying that myself and ErikE started a conversation on a question on the Buddhism Stack Exchange that moved to a chat room (I don't know if others can see it, apologies if not). I referred him to The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Nagarjuna which explains Madhyamaka, and it is where I should resume, but I don't think it is necessary for you to look at the previous conversation to understand my answer. He was kind enough to ask me to look at this question too, which no doubt means I'm one of the (or the only) nihilist/Buddhists that have wound him up so.

Because it's pertinent, I will summarise the whole of Buddhist thinking as quickly as possible for those who are impatient! Luckily, The Buddha (allegedly) did it himself in just 2 lines:

Because of this, that.
Because of that, this.

Elegant Failure: A Guide to Zen Koans By Richard Shrobe

Yes, it's all in that and I will now show how this means the kind of "truth" that ErikE is looking for in Buddhism and failing to find is unnecessary, irrelevant, and inimical to the goals of Buddhist practice.

A middle way between reification and nihilism

A couple of definitions from my Mac's dictionary:

reify |ˈriːɪfʌɪ, ˈreɪɪ-|
verb (reifies, reifying, reified) [ with obj. ] formal
make (something abstract) more concrete or real:
these instincts are, in man, reified as verbal constructs.

---

nihilism |ˈnʌɪ(h)ɪlɪz(ə)m|
noun [ mass noun ]
the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.
• Philosophy the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence

Both reification (which I'll produce a better explanation of, but in the meantime, you may think of Abrahmic religious thought, or Platonian perfect objects) and nihilism are rejected as extremes in Madhyamaka thought (which I will use as a general representation of Buddhist thought), which proposes a middle way between them. To explain this, the first 2 of the 4 Noble Truths:

1. There is suffering.
2. All conditioned phenomena are impermanent.

So, the first point: "There is", this is the opposite of a denial of existence, not nihilistic at all.

Secondly, The Buddha only taught suffering, and non suffering. The whole point is to be happy (i.e. free from suffering). That's the first thing on the list and it's there because "to be happy" is the primary wish of all sentient beings and the goal of Buddhist practice. Therefore, meaningful (unless you wish to argue that striving for happiness and being happy is meaningless, good luck with that:)

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent means that all phenomena are subject to conditions. They arise through conditions, they continue due to conditions, and when those conditions are removed, they end. An example is the classic from school science lessons, the plant. With sunlight, good soil, water, air and a seed, a plant will arise and sustain. When these conditions are removed or not present, the plant will not arise, not sustain, will die.

Since all phenomena are conditioned they are dependent on other things for their existence. They do not exist independently. This idea is known as dependent origination. It precludes souls, causes, powers to cause, creator gods, essential nature. So this is where Buddhists reject something, they reject a description of existence that relies on things like an everlasting soul. Phenomena are empty of inherent existence. This is not the same as saying existence is meaningless (far from it, and western style atheists will recognise this "life is meaningless without God" straw man argument). It also does not reject existence, it just says that unneeded explanations are… not needed. I'm sure everyone on these boards is aware of Occam's Razor, and it's the same in Buddhist thinking - there is already enough to explain how things are working without recourse to essential nature. Special pleading requires a special justification, not the other way round.

In the same way that you are you even though you change from second to second, from year to year, Buddhism accepts this as a convention (known as conventional truth). You have no essential nature that makes you you, no I-ness, no soul, no Platonian perfect you wandering around the cosmos. You are a collection of aggregates that are conceived to be you. Your existence is not denied, just rid of extraneous and incorrect explanation. Same for anything (unless you can show otherwise).

The map is not the terrain

Buddhism is not a philosophy. It makes observations that you are to investigate for yourself, not to create a map, but to see that the map is just the map and instead experience reality directly for yourself. Truth is found in life, not in a doctrine (even those 4 Noble "Truths" are only accepted as true if you find them true through investigation, same as everything else I've stated. Note that Truths is the word used, they are relative too). This goal to experience reality directly is explored in different Buddhist sects, like in this zen koan:

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!

She was experiencing the reflection of the moon, not the moon. When the water broke, all she had left was the moon. She could look up and experience it directly. Bruce Lee echoed this in Enter the Dragon :)

No doctrine and no ultimate truth

The Buddha also compared his teaching to a raft. When you cross the river you abandon the raft, you do not carry it with you. Buddhism is like medicine for a deluded view of reality. Once you are "cured" you may give it up, there is no need for it. Thus, Buddhism is not a doctrine of "truth", there is no need or desire for it beyond that which is efficacious. The ultimate truth that all things are one, that they cannot be differentiated essentially (a corollary of dependent origination), means that the ultimate truth is there is no ultimate truth. And frankly, unless it's some use in the goal of achieving happiness, who cares anyway?

In summary:

• Buddhism is not nihilistic (even the Mind Only school, which sounds somewhat nihilistic, is only using this stuff as a explanation, not to create an ontology)
• It's not self refuting (what does that really mean anyway?)
• It doesn't lead to a meaningless life or outlook necessarily. Maybe I'll watch some rubbish TV, I doubt it was Buddhism that made me do it ;-)
• Buddhists don't argue about their views as some kind of public intellectual masturbation process any more than anyone else. I'd say it's more likely we are doing it because we sincerely hold that view.
• ErikE is holding onto a view that there must be an absolute truth and my failure to accept his assertions is obviously irritating to him. Well, that's life with other people, what am I (or his opponents in this) supposed to say? Someone has a too strongly held view that's been unthoroughly examined, could be me and the other so-called nihilists and Buddhists, could be ErikE. Maybe my fellow (fake) nihilist Satre was right, Hell is other people.

Answer 8

Upon revisiting your question and commentary, I was struck by your reliance on the notion of “faithful[ness]” (…it only needs faithfulness (e.g., a photo is never truly accurate because it is not comprehensive, but it can be a faithful representation of something and adequately express truths;” “Nothing needs to be comprehensive to have meaning—it is enough to be faithful,” and so on). It reminded me of James’s [undefined, possibly primitive] “agrees with” formation.

The idea seems to be that a description or representation need only be faithful to what it represents/describes in order for it to be “true”, and for meaning to exist or “arise.” That it is not necessary for the word/world relationship, in order to “adequately express truth,” to also be comprehensive, and express “true accuracy.” Generally speaking, post Quine/Wittgenstein, no reasonable and reasonably informed person would disagree. However, as we know so well, the devil is in the details.

In the kind of debate you have sparked by your post, the salient question is whether that representation, in order to have “faithfulness,” in order to “adequately express truth,” need also be unique and indispensable to our ability to adequately represent/describe the world at all. Ordinarily, that a symbol is faithful to what it represents does not entail it being the only symbol capable doing so (which is not to say that it cannot be thus for a particular pair at a particular time). And this may be all that your relativist frenemies are doing. Pointing out that it is generally the case, or (to use your preferred vocabulary), it is faithful to his/her experience of the world, [to say/believe] that more than one symbol can be said to faithfully represent a particular thing/event perceived to be out there. This statement is not self-refuting. And, following Davidson’s charity principle, it might be helpful to interpret what “relativists” say in this way, rather than considering [all of them] them to be “self-absorbed egomaniacs who care nothing if they tickle their own ears at others' expense” [though some, like some realists/absolutists, may very well be].

Answer 9

At least some skeptics/relativists have not realized that their view is self-refuting.

If a person that does not possess strong critical thinking skills observes that people believe in different things around him/her, s/he can make a superficial deduction of "I see people believe in different things, so how can there be such a thing as truth?" It takes special effort to realize that if one believes there is no such thing as truth, then s/he believes, contradictorily, that something is true.

Also, some such views are widespread in our society. Take the case of cultural relativism, which in my opinion also suffers from the self-referential problem: if all cultural views are relative and hence none is "true", then a culture that would assert cultural relativism is also not "true". But this attitude is widespread, since it is considered impolite in some circles to criticize other cultures (partially for political reasons).

It seems to me that you have realized very well that those views are self-contradictory, yet, there is no reason to ascribe this realization to all those who hold self-contradictory views—those who have not had this realization can still argue for their truth sincerely, even if fallaciously.

Answer 10

Let's pretend for a moment that I am a nihilist. I assert that nothing is true. Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that:

1. If nothing is true, then everything is false.
2. The statement "nothing is true" is false.
3. Therefore nihilism is self-refuting.

The problem with your reasoning is that the statement "nothing is true" also applies to the logic which is necessary to go from (1) to (2) to (3). Nihilism is not self-refuting because a nihilist asserts that the logical steps required to reach a contradiction cannot be taken.

Substitute absolute for true and relative for false to get the argument for relativism.