[Azure]

I have an English test coming up and my teacher gave us a list of possible essay questions. Here's the prompt:

Although few of us actually understand Einstein's theory of relativity, it is often remarked that we live in an age of relativity in other ways than in our understanding of physics. Using our study of any of the literature we studied, write an essay in which you entertain the idea that we in the 21st century are living in an age of relativity.

I'm having a really hard time preparing for this topic mainly because I don't see how we live in an age of relativity, or how people often remark that we do. I have no idea what to do with this topic because I'm thinking that we DON'T live in an age of relativity (If we were to live in an age of relativity, I'd think that we'd always consider opposing views and justify our actions by noting that they're based on our perspective, etc....but I don't think we do this...). Could you guys help me understand how one could say that we do live in an age of relativity? The rest of the prompt should be easy, but I'm having a really hard time getting over this first hurdle of being able to believe that we do live in an age of relativity.

 

[Blitzula]

Well, we clearly live in an age of moral relativism. It's hard to elaborate further without delving into politics or religion, so I'll just say that there was a time and place when morality was deemed fairly clear-cut in many areas. Now, we create shades of gray...rationalizations and individuality determinants surrounding what was previously immoral behavior or philosophies.

 

[Azure]

I should note that I would greatly appreciate it if you would try to keep political/religion discussion out of this or to the bare minimum to the point where it would not be offensive/against Head-Fi rules. You can PM the full religious/political explanations (I kind of get yours Blitzula, but could you elaborate a bit via PM?), but try to keep them out of this thread so that it doesn't get locked. Thank you

 

[Blitzula]

I think if you check the philosophy of moral relativism at the attached link, you could think of some ways that our society today embraces a good portion of this philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

 

[trains are bad]

Well if you don't think we are living in an age of relativism, write about how you don't think we are living in an age of relativism.

It's what I do. In one of my classes we are supposed to write reading responses about every chapter we read, and most of mine have been about how I think the author is a moron. I've been getting good marks on them too.

 

[ATAT]

you have to use literature, which is slightly hard.

Of course there are alot of literature against relativism, alot of russia lit falls undrethis..

consider Brothers Karamazov, or Crime and Punishment... these books support the view that there is an absolute form of morality (ie from god). I'd say that Sartre's Troubled Sleep also goes against relativism, at least hte parts about Mathieu. Alot of the "moral stories" are against moral relativism, I can list off some works.. Handmaid's Tale, Lord of the Flies (probably), The Idiot.

Kafka's metamorphosis OTOH could be taken as a support of relativism, that is, the justification of morality on the basis of subjectivity (ie from Greta / Gregor's POV)

Camus's stranger would also be for relativism, sort of a criticsm of morality itself (basically, the whole concept of absurdism goes contrary to an objective, unified system of morality).

Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra is probably the best example of relativism, it pretty much says that what is moral in one tribe, is not moral in another .. so that's pretty good.

Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon.. could work.. also pretty absurd (but not absurdist, as in Camus) and makes fun of morality in the whole black people toilet scene..

Relativism is not confied to "seeing the other person's point of view" Nietzsche, who is one of the foremost proponents of this philosophy argued that there is no single "moral" framework which we all abide by. The only thing you have to prove is that in today's multi-cultural, multi-whatever society, a fundamental set of morality has broken down. Consider the Scarlett Letter by Hawthorne, early puritan society would pretty confidently say that there was a unified set of morality (i.e. puritanism) but today, when your neighbor may be a chinese person who eats dogs (no stereotype meant, just attempting to point out cultural difference) you really can't find a single framework for morality..

Also, this is about literature, keep the politics discussion elsewhere.

 

[euclid]

you should take the opposite approach. take a few days to learn and understand the profound, almost prophetic, laws that Einstein did join together and then explain that we still do live in that world of E=MC^2.

then simply explain that the reason we dont realize, understand, or care about it today is that our school system sucks, add a couple "relatively speaking"s here and there, done, you get an A without even having to experiment with LSD.

 

[terrymx]

onto my rambling that i probably dont know what the heck i'm talking about:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ATAT Lord of the Flies (probably)

no actaully this is a good example to write against moral relativity. the author shows what become of a group of kids and how they turn to hunt down each other when isolate from any addlt supervision, which is a reflection of the cruel way of survival of the fittest in nature. so this "survival nature" can be use as one of the rebuttal, although i dont know how legit it is.

i read this book in high school and it was a great book because it reflects very much about all the kids at that age and how we treat each other, because we havent known any better, and the teachers doesnt tell the kids the meaning behind the book.

 

[djgustashaw]

It depends on your reference frame.

 

[ATAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrymx onto my rambling that i probably dont know what the heck i'm talking about: no actaully this is a good example to write against moral relativity. the author shows what become of a group of kids and how they turn to hunt down each other when isolate from any addlt supervision, which is a reflection of the cruel way of survival of the fittest in nature. so this "survival nature" can be use as one of the rebuttal, although i dont know how legit it is. i read this book in high school and it was a great book because it reflects very much about all the kids at that age and how we treat each other, because we havent known any better, and the teachers doesnt tell the kids the meaning behind the book.

Eh, I see Lord of the Flies more as a support for a Hobbesian moral framework than support for moral relativity. I guess the main support for this reading is that the "hunters" are fairly dehumanized in the book; rather than being portrayed as actor with their own moral motivations (which would, be moral relativism, you're right) they're portrayed as brutal killers, in opposition to forces of civilization in a state of nature.

OTOH you are right, there is a relativist reading of the book (which is why I put probably on there

)

 

[cerbie]

General relativity, conceptually, is basically that everything affects everything else. In physics, gravity and light (and other radiation) play major roles for about everything, and it is the nuance of light having an always-constant speed that give us time and space as we know it. Basically, it amounts to, in more abstract sense, that one thing happening, or a quality being displayed, is related to another thing happening, in a complimentary manner. One thing going up can be described as another going down.

"Living in an age of relativity" is of course a silly and rather vague thing. I have no advice there, save to say that my response would be that we've always lived in such an age, it just took someone with reasonable wit to call it that for now, until we are gone and forget about it, and it gets a new name. But even then, some lit book will have survived, with nothing complete in it except for Ozymandias.

 

[gtp]

Hey Azure,

I always got top marks in English classes, and often went against the grain when it came to writing essays.

If your teacher is reasonable, I say go ahead and write your paper explaining your position even if it disagrees with the prompt. You can "entertain the idea" of relativism and then disprove it using evidence from the works you have read. If your teacher is in any way reasonable, they will not agree with you but they will appreciate your point of view if it is well developed and supported.

I would highly recommend running the idea by your teacher before investing time, though!

Good luck,
GTP

 

[chadbang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azure Although few of us actually understand Einstein's theory of relativity, it is often remarked that we live in an age of relativity in other ways than in our understanding of physics.

I understand it. I believe for every hour you exceed the speed limit you reclaim a minute of your life.

 

[Azure]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadbang I understand it. I believe for every hour you exceed the speed limit you reclaim a minute of your life.

Not sure if "reclaim" is the right word as you travel forward 1 minute in time relative to those that aren't moving; you don't experience the extra minute, but everybody else does (Time remains constant for you).

 

[Usagi]

If you're going to stick with your view on this topic, maybe you could expound upon the theory of Moral Fallibilism as a premise.