No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Abstract
The question ‘Is everything relative?’ is philosophy' equivalent of a trashy horror movie. It sounds radical and deep. One is excited by the enormity of the insight one would gain were one to find out that indeed, everything is relative. Max Kölbel argues that indeed, everything is relative, but does so by presenting a ‘sensible’ form of relativism supported by a straightforward argument.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 2007
References
Further Reading
The details of the book by Ayer, in which he defends emotivism, are: Ayer, Alfred J. 1946. Language Truth and Logic, 2nd Edition, London: Victor Gollancz.Google Scholar
Kölbel, Max, 2003. ‘Faultless Disagreement’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104, pp. 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacFarlane, John 2005: ‘Making Sense of Relative Truth’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105, pp. 321–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, David. 1995. ‘Pluralistic Relativism’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 20, pp. 378–99.Google Scholar
A treatment of objections against relativism can be found in chapter 7 of Kölbel, Max 2002. Truth without Objectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Priest, Graham and Tanaka, Koji 2004: ‘Paraconsistent Logic’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2004/entries/logicparaconsistent/>..>Google Scholar
Priest, Graham 2004: ‘Dialetheism’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/dialetheism/>..>Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by