Epistemology (unedited and uncompleted)

  Before I present arguments for free will and deconstruct Sam Harris’ arguments against free will, I want to first start by talking about epistemology. The reason for this is that we have to first be aware of the proper way of figuring out what is true and not true before we actually assess truth claims. Though it can be expressed very simply, to fully understand how it works, it has to be hashed out.

Most people believe, not what the evidence suggests, but what they want to believe. A proper understanding of how we should decide what is true helps us counteract this tendency.

With epistemology, I like to start with the relativists. Most people that you seem to meet today are relativists.

This is reflected in this Oxford University lecture (45:05), where most people in the crowd put up their hand when asked if they are relativists. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efVM0jaJ7Dk 

But if I remember correctly, the Oxford professor dismantles relativism as a shallow philosophy. I will present my explanation for why this is true after I define relativism.

The Oxford Dictionary defines relativism as “the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.” 

The relativists do have a point. As we will see later with Immanuel Kant, humans don’t have access to absolute truth with 100% certainty. But the reason we do not have to take relativists too seriously is that though they say that they do not know absolute truth, they ACT like absolute truth exists. When a relativist eats a bowl of cereal, the relativist believes that the bowl of cereal, or some sort of something, actually exists in front of them. 

Any sane relativist acts in a way that reflects that they believe certain things are in fact true absolutely.