Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the
thesis that all points of view are equally valid. In ethics, this
amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology
it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true.
Critics of relativism typically dismiss such views as incoherent since
they imply the validity even of the view that relativism is false. They
also charge that such views are pernicious since they undermine the
enterprise of trying to improve our ways of thinking.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/relativi.htm
The first clear statement of relativism comes with the Sophist
Protagoras, as quoted by Plato, "The way things appear to me, in that
way they exist for me; and the way things appears to you, in that way
they exist for you" (Theaetetus 152a). Thus, however I see things, that
is actually true — for me. If you see things differently, then that is
true — for you. There is no separate or objective truth apart from how
each individual happens to see things. Consequently, Protagoras says
that there is no such thing as falsehood. Unfortunately, this would
make Protagoras’s own profession meaningless, since his business is to
teach people how to persuade others of their own beliefs. It would be
strange to tell others that what they believe is true but that they
should accept what you say nevertheless. So Protagoras qualified his
doctrine: while whatever anyone believes is true, things that some
people believe may be better than what others believe.
Plato thought that such a qualification reveals the inconsistency of
the whole doctrine. His basic argument against relativism is called the
"Turning the Tables" (Peritropé, "turning around") argument, and it
goes something like this: "If the way things appear to me, in that way
they exist for me, and the way things appears to you, in that way they
exist for you, then it appears to me that your whole doctrine is
false." Since anything that appears to me is true, then it must be true
that Protagoras is wrong [1]. Relativism thus has the strange logical
property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction.
Indeed, if Protagoras says that there is no falsehood, then he cannot
say that the opposite, the contradiction, of his own doctrine is false.
Protagoras wants to have it both ways — that there is no falsehood but
that the denial of what he says is false — and that is typical of
relativism. And if we say that relativism simply means that whatever I
believe is nobody else’s business, then there is no reason why I should
tell anybody else what I believe, since it is then none of my business
to influence their beliefs.
http://www.friesian.com/relative.htm
Matt: I don’t believe that all points of view are equally valid.
Jan: Why not?
Matt: Because it doesn’t make sense that everything is relative. That
wouldn’t be logical.
Jan: Ah, you see? That is your problem. You are using logic to refute
relativism and you cannot do that. Relativism isn’t based upon logic.
It isn’t the same thing. So you can’t use logic to refute relativism.
Matt: If you say I cannot use logic to refute relativism, then you are
using logic to say this since you give me the logical statement and
conclusion that I cannot use logic to refute relativism because
relativism isn’t based on logic. I hope you can see that you made a
logical case here for not using logic. If that is so, then your
complaint is self contradictory and invalid. Would you want me to
follow a system of thought that is self contradictory?
Jan: I can see why they call you slick. But, the point is that
relativism is true within itself and logic is not a necessary property
of relativism. It can be used within relativism, but it is not superior
to relativism.
Matt: To say that relativism is true within itself is an absolute
statement. Don’t you see that you can’t do that if relativism is true?
You would have to say something like, "Relativism is true some of the
time."
Jan: You are playing word games here.
Matt: I do not see how. I am simply responding to what you said. I
think what you are doing is simply making assertions without proof. You
are saying that it is true because it is true. In essence, you are
telling me an absolute truth that relativism is its own self-existing
truth. This is an absolute statement which again refutes the notion
that relativism is true. Furthermore, if relativism is true then
relativism itself is relative. In other words, if relativism is true,
then relativism may or may not be true in and of itself. If that is
true, then relativism can be false. If relativism can be false, then
relativism can’t be true.
Jan: There you go using logic again. Logic is not the whole means by
which truth is determined. Relativism goes beyond logic to truths that
logic cannot prove.
Matt: Okay, then without using logic, can you tell why relativism is
true?
Jan: It is true because it is true that people believe different things
and that people have different perceptions of reality and what is right
for them.
Matt: I agree that people believe different things, but does believing
different things make them true because they are believed?
Jan: No, of course not. But you must understand that we perceive things
differently, and that these different perceptions are true for
different people.
Matt: I can agree with that, but I am not speaking about things that
really are relative like which side of the bed you should get out of in
the morning. I’m talking about things like lying, cheating, stealing,
etc. If relativism is true and all points of view are equally valid,
then someone’s view that it is okay to steal, is valid.
Jan: Technically, it would be, depending on the circumstances. For
example, if it meant feeding your family or helping someone.
Matt: I see. Okay, give me your money right now. I want to steal it
from you. If I had a gun, I’d point it at you and rob you. Is that
okay?
Jan: Of course not.
Matt: Why not? My view is that in order to win the argument, I must rob
from you to demonstrate the absurdity of your position. Therefore, it
is right for me. You should approve.
Jan: But I cannot, because it isn’t right for me that you steal from
me.
Matt: Oh, so relativism has boundaries? It is true only for the
individual, no one else?
Jan: In that case yes.
Matt: Then relativism isn’t a universal truth is it? If it is only true
for individuals on an individual basis, it may or may not be true or
false or right or wrong or whatever. It is just a kind of "whatever you
want to do and feel" philosophy.
Jan: Sort of, but you can’t harm anyone else.
Matt: Are you saying that it is an absolute that you are not to harm
anyone else?
Jan: There you go again turning this into an argument on absolutes.
Matt: But I am only following your lead. You’re the one who said that
relativism is true because it is true. Correct?
Jan: Yes, I said that, but you have to understand that it is relative
to the individual.
Matt: If relativism is true because it is true, then can I say that it
is false because it is false?
Jan: You could if you wanted to.
Matt: Then would it be false or not?
Jan: It would be false for you.
Matt: But that isn’t what I said. I said it was false…. "because it
is false." I didn’t say it was false for me. I said that it is by
nature false. Don’t you see? You said it was true "because it is true."
You spoke of it as being true "by nature." You implied an absolute
quality to relativism as a real truth. If I can do the same thing in
the opposite direction, then how does my assertion become different in
nature than yours? In other words, "by nature" it is true and "by
nature" it is false. Both cannot be true. Therefore relativism doesn’t
work.
Jan: What you are doing is using logic again. Relativism and logic are
different things. You cannot use one thing to judge another.
Matt: But you just did. You made a statement and drew a conclusion. You
said that relativism and logic are different. Then you said that I
cannot use one to judge the other. In other words, you made a statement
and drew a logical conclusion. Look. If you want to validate relativism
using relativism, then why do you keep using logic to do it?
Jan: You keep going back to these logic games. You have to understand
that they are simply different.
Matt: So then, what you are saying is that I am not allowed to examine
relativism in a logical manner. Correct?
Jan: Correct.
Matt: You want truth, right?
Jan: Of course.
Matt: But, if I must accept that relativism is simply true, how can I
possibly know if it is ever false? What you are saying is that it is
never false. If it is never false, then it is always true. If it is
always true, then it isn’t relative, is it?
Jan: There you go using logic again.
Matt: I’m trying to ask questions. But, it seems that you want me to
avoid thinking and just accept relativism as true. If I were to say
that relativism is true, then it is absolutely true that relativism is
true which would mean that the opposing view that relativism is false,
could not be true…which would mean that relativism is not true since
it states that all views are true. It seems to me that the only way
relativism is true, is if you stop thinking logically and just accept
it on blind faith that it is true.
Jan: This is the problem with the western, Aristotelian logic system.
It teaches you that there are absolutes when there are not.
Matt: But to say there are not absolutes is an absolute statement,
which is self refuting. Again, it seems that the only way to accept
relativism is to not think logically. You have to believe it on faith.
Jan: The nature of relativism is that it is not subject to logic. No
logical reasons are necessary to establish this. Relativism, by its
nature, is not of logic, but beyond logic. The essence of relativism is
that relativism itself, is true.
Matt: Then you are simply stating that relativism is true without
…
read more »