Relativism vs. Absolutism

[Scott]

What do you think about these two epistemological theories? Do you favor one over the other?

I think relativism has become more popular as the world has become more secularized and science has developed. Relativism offers epistemological explanations based solely on physicalist, empirical, and secular reasoning. Absolutism generally requires some sort of religious or metaphysical assumption of "universal truth" or some such.

As a secular atheist, I reject absolutism. Nonetheless, there are many brands of relativism, and I do not agree with a lot of them either.

What do you think?

Honestly, I don't you can ever actually escape relativism. Even if a universal truth is presupposed, whether in ethics or epistemology, I think it is still seen through a filter of associations and memories and value judgements imparted by the perciever upon what they percieve. Even if there is something true out there, in my opinion we would never be able to actually see it objectively.
That viewpoint comes from a standpoint of taking an absolute truth for granted. When you take into account that you can't actually trust any information your senses give you, or trust yourself to interperate anything's meaning clearly and objectively you would have to question the evidence that would make you believe in universal truth, thus leading back to relativism. I honestly don't think absolutism is a logically tenable position, and that the easiest way to demonstrate that is a chain of "Why do you believe that?" questions leading back to the point where anything believed must be taken on faith.

I think that relativism is most prominent in ethics; applied ethics in particular. I hate to admit it, but at times I can be relativistic in regard to ethics.

Now with absolutism, it might be possible in logic and mathematics. Say, maybe logical and mathematical proofs and axioms but, I have not really thought about it that much, so I could be wrong.

There is no real distinction between relativism and the absolute; that which is relative is also absolute, and therefore it is neither relative nor absolute. The existence of relativism requires the existence of absolutism and vice versa, otherwise neither could truly exist. Such distinctions rely on the division of reality into opposites, when in fact such opposites, although they are apparent, do not truly exist separate from each other, in and of themselves.

Take order and chaos for example. Order and chaos are both relative and absolute. What is order to A is chaos to B, whilst order to B might be chaos to A. Therefore order and chaos are relative to both A and B. However, this relativism rests on the fact that both order and chaos are absolute, otherwise how could relativism exist? For events or phenomena to be be experienced as both order and chaos they must also be absolute in themselves, otherwise how could such phenomena be both order and chaos at one and the same time? This must mean, then, that events are also neither truly ordered nor chaotic, and therefore neither order nor chaos have a reality of their own - they are neither relative nor absolute, and yet they are both relative and absolute!

All knowledge is relaive except for the absolute principles to which all knowledge is induced to or deduced from.

Whast are some of these absolute principles? Image a dynamic balance acale that weighs negative-neutral-positve values. These values are in balancing change so that as one value increases, the others decrease, yet the whole quantity remains the same. In other words, the absolute whole never changes, but the relative parts always change. This is evident in scientific conservation and motion laws, and in E=mc2.

This balancing principle is expressed in a maxim: All things change, yet nothing changes; all is one, yet all is diverse.

Words to define the parts, functions, relationships, and ingterrelationships of this balance scale are ultimate principles from which knowledge is deducible. Some of such names are: Balance, Cycle, Control, Harmony, Symmetry, Proportion, etc.

Whether relativistic or absolutist stance is better depends on whether one is doing metaphysics, or making a practical decision.

Relativist stance is best for science because the sceptical scientist ideally tries to consider all the possible variables which may include the points of view of several observers, or the influence of a culture.Similarly when doing metaphysics the sceptic ideally admits that absolute knowledge is impossible.

When making a practical decision, or deciding on some ethic or other, absolutist stance is necessary because each decider has no choice other than to act.In practical matters of which moral decisions and aesthetic evaluations are examples it is impossible to avoid being an absolutist,even when there are several individuals forming a committee.

A hypothetical all-knowing being is the imaginary perfection of knowledge which would permit a perfectly just decision if only it were a fact. It follows that the more knowledge , the better it is for justice, mercy, pity, and peace.Here is another use for relativism.

The belief that an all- knowing being has revealed perfect knowledge is metaphysically unsound because intentions are prerequisites of intelligent mind/bodies which are by definition individual consciousnesses.

I favour relativism, but in some ways the whole epistemological project is ill-concieved, seeking as it does knowledge defined as true belief. There is no such thing as truth. We cannot know anything with certainty - but only show that this conceptual scheme reconciles more perceptions of reality in non-contradictory relations than that conceptual scheme. The product is an understanding of perception that is either more or less valid of reality than some other, but is not truth, and therefore there can be no such thing as knowledge in the absolute sense.
Of course, sufficient conditions for truth are raised in the epistemological literature, but i'm okay with variously valid formulations of "knowledge." The obligation then falls on me to reason as to which formulation of knowledge is a more adequate description of reality - which can easily be achieved by comparing what can, and cannot be explained in terms of each.
Thus I disagree with Belinda's assertion that for practical purposes we have to be absolutist, for while we may have to act on the basis of the best information available, we can always be aware that it is not truth, recognize externalities as valid realities that need to be internalized, and refine our conceptual schemes accordingly.

Relativism makes sense only when related to an absolute ultimate principle. The practicality of an abolute principle is evident in these examples: All that helps to achieve an ultimaste good is good. All that relates to an ultimate premise will be rational. All goals that help to achievxe an ultimate purpose will be justified. All who view an ultimate perspective that is ideal beaauty will be breautiful and ideal. All that follows an ultimaste principle will a truth that is in the image of it.

With such principles one has almost an instant means to resolving conflicts as to what is true, moral, just, and beautiful. This elimiates mental conflicts from trying to resolve relative truths to a conclusion. Without mental conflicts there is no blocking of mental potential. Doesn't this make metaphysical ultimate principles to have much practicality, as relativism does not?

If I have a jigsaw puzzle, every piece that I fit into another piece or section is a coherent truth. Can this be denied as a truth. If I have a picture of the whole puzzle in my mind, it's an ultimate premise by which any piece may be fitted into its proper place as a coherent truth. Can you disagree with this? If I have no premise to guide me, there is no coherent truth, only relative, meaningless pieces. Which is better the absolute premise or the relative pieces?.

Yes, the absolute premiss feels better, but feel- good is not necessarily true

What ever one can think or feel is relative. Absolute is something stable i.e on which the whole universe rests. We cannot define it.

How might we know that there is an absolute?

Honestly, I try to avoid both.

Nothing is certain, but some things should be favoured.

So I guess I'm a relativist to the extent that we can never have absolute knowledge or moral truth. I'm not relativist in a sense, that every proposition etc. is equally good. For example in practice, we should accept empiricism as a tool to gain scientific knowledge. Wheather accepted information gained this way is true or not, doesn't really concern anybody else than philosophers.

Belinda-It is difficult to define 'Absolute' and its existence. It is beyond life and death. Absolute is something similar to neutrality, but is beyond that too. It is neither living nor nonliving. To the extent we try to define and understand absolutism, the more our knowledge of philosophy and wisdom increases. In brief, absolute can be understood as the end of Philosophy itself. But this too is only an effort to define 'Absolute'.

Kumarssin, I guess that some poets and philosophers have defined 'the absolute' well enough to be going on with. However, no matter how well the absolute is defined the absolute will not thereby be real except in the thoughts of believers in it.

Kiwi I agree.