TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

What are the educational implications of holding on to objective truth in a culture that values relativistic truth?

Besides conflict, of course! This question is deliberately broad, not focused on teachers, students, curriculum, or institutions specifically, so that the soil of it may be tilled as completely as possible through discussion.

Let's start here: if one holds that objective truth exists, then the interactions with culture, peers, professors, course content, and even the disciplines themselves must be flavored and shaped by that assertion. In a postmodern, relativist culture, this questions is somewhat pressing: there are movements in education that favor both types of truth, and that can make plugging into education, for a student, disciple, or apprentice of an opposing view, feel something like a 120V appliance being plugged into a 220V outlet. Without a transformer, step-down or step-up, these learners seemingly would not be able to approach, apprehend, or socialize around the learning because the premises behind its whole gestalt are out of phase. Or could they? What are the transformers necessary to do so? And the greater question: what are the implications for our culture? Can folks who have these two views, and therefore different educations, inherently, create a functional society together?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Comment deleted

    • Jul 1 2013: Example of an objective truth: let's say God. This is a hot topic on this thread. : ) In a couple of other posts, I've made the attempt to outline what I think would be a serious pedagogical implication of this, namely how a student or teacher views a discipline. Consider the difference in the way one understands history if they see it as an unfurling of God's revelation versus a random set of events and circumstances?

      I'll also posit that some truths, like scientific or mathematical truths (if we step aside from Godel's arguments) are objective within their own systems. No disputing these. There would be some dispute, however, on the nature of those discipline's origins, and that could make for large variance in the way those are taught depending upon your objective or subjective, relativistic stance.

      Example of someone who bases their live on objective truth: a thoughtful Christian.

      The challenge, of course, is stepping past the epistemological point there.
      • Jul 1 2013: The problem being that thinking that Christianity is objectively true is but a belief. Therefore such "truth" depends on the subject's beliefs (it's both subjective and relative).
        • Jul 1 2013: What if it was? How would that change the teaching/learning?

          I just posted back on your comment above. See what I'm saying about perspective: I'm using Christianity because it's a common cultural reference point in our culture, but there could be others. Not trolling for Jesus here, but I am looking for a good conversation, and that requires some reference points.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.