Disputing Relativism with Alienism
I. Relativism and the Relatedness of Natures
Relativism and Alienism�to have correspondence they absolutely must relate. If we conceive of any given thing as always being absolutely unrelated by one measure (its identity or nature) insofar as we believe the relationship between two terms is relative, we are also saying that their natures are not absolutely different�if nature is loosely defined as its entire being, or at least symbolic or characteristic of the trend of its existence. By sharing in the same world, whether consciously or no, by any given standard there either is or is not a relationship. Insofar as there is a relationship, their natures are in some way entertwined. For relativists to say otherwise is also for them to say that the natures of the terms or identities are not absolutely unrelated�essentially the same point.
Saying that natures are not absolutely unrelated implies that nature is relative as opposed to absolute, yet saying that the relationship between terms is relative is saying that comprehension is relative, but according to the argument we must choose one or the other�so our choice is either a potentially relative nature with an absolutist comprehension, or an absolutist nature with a potentially relative comprehension. In other words, absolute relativism doesn�t exist for comprehension, since an absolutist nature implies a reference framework by which relativism is assessed as such. Of course, in the context of an absolutist comprehension, "relative" might be a crude term to use for self-nature. �Dynamic�, �Evolutionary�, �Relevantistic�, or �Introspective� might all be suitable stand-ins.
Consider the phrase "What is moving if all is movement?".
II. Relativism and the Hierarchy of Legitimate Perspectives
To accept truth from one standpoint and no other is to accept that it is more legitimate. But to accept truth from multiple standpoints is also to accept that there is a correspondence amongst them--essentially that there is an over-arching standpoint that is more legitimate. To say otherwise is to hold that two perspectives exist without correspondence, yet to a relativist the idea that two perspectives exist simultaneously implies that there is a correspondence. By relativistic standards it is unnecessarily conflictive to claim that two standpoints exist without correspondence.
Solipsistic relativism is a form of confusion, or an absence of tools. There is no doubt that it is a possible perspective, but it is not characterized by a relationship to other perspectives, which undoubtedly exist, in the sense that they may be imagined. In other words, it is unimaginative to have a personal viewpoint that denies the existence of other viewpoints. The very reality or nature of an individual viewpoint is proof that other viewpoints exist, and that there is a correspondence in the sense that relationships are possible and interractions may happen. To say that there is no individual nature or viewpoint is also to say that no opinion is held--yet relativism is an opinion.
Therefore we may say that the over-arching standpoint accounts for individual natures, and the most legitimate system accounts for their relationships. Yet we may also say that the most legitimate individual viewpoint takes account of the over-arching standpoint which has taken account of individual natures. But since the individual natures are founded in a field of possibilities that is essentially held in common--the primary world--the scale of legitimacy of individual perspectives in fact runs towards a broader awareness of what is possible for all people.
From a certain standpoint relativism is possible for all people--we do indeed relate. But that isn't to say that truth is relative. In fact, it is only within the context of a system--a field of possibility--that any relationship is possible.
Return to Essays Main
The preceding, as well as all other parts of Nathan's Philosophy and Writing are pending copyright (c) 2006-2007 Nathan Coppedge
Main Page
Essays Main
* Conc. & Abs.
* Iterative Philos.
* Unity Intro
* Imperfection
* Occam Dispute
* Nominal Mech.
* Res. Paradox
* Metamorphosis
* Essent. Principa
* Meta-Extension
* Meta Precis
* Meta Wrinkles
* Relevantism
* Relative Dispute
* Symbolism
* Wisdom Walks
* Pragma Temp.
* World consists
* Program. Antith
* Body Real Estate
* Four Corners
* Schizo def
* Moral 2d
* Eating Acrobats
* Fork Analogy
* Sloppy Thinking
Book of Indra
Unity Philosophy
Trans Ethics
On Systems
About Writing
Quotes & Slants
Intellectualia