what is worse you don't know when anyone in particular is wrong or right and finally even IF there are wrongs and rights.
I believe there is a difference between not knowing and asserting. The difference is akin to that between agnostic and atheist.
You mentioned that you observed and then came to believe. That is what our christians will tell us they did. I had hoped there would be a way to tell you apart. Wait. Perhaps, WHAT you believe holds a clue.
I have lived so as to acknowledge and respect subjective differences in perception and belief for most of my life. I have also believed that the difference in the perceived reality of facts was mostly or entirely based upon the perceiver and not the fact. This is common sense. We know that reason continues to bring about a greater and greater consensus about facts. Thus, the atomic table, the boiling point of water, etc.--there is almost no difference of opimion about these facts amongst people that hold reason to be a tool for truth.
I do not doubt that you practice relativism. However, If you use the concept of true, you must have the concept of false. If you wish to debate with the accepted premises of logic and reason, then one must be prepared to prove that one doctrine is true and another is false. If your doctrine involves the impossibility of there being such distinctions at an objective (and thus, agreed upon) level, then for you to simply assert the truth of something (in this case the doctrine that all truth is relative), involves the admission that the assertion itself is only a relative truth, and to the degree that it differs from a more superior or more pragmatic relative truth as regards the nature of truth--to that degree, the statement that all truth is relative, may, indeed, include an immense range of pragmatic meaning.
I really believe that most relativists are simply pragmatists, of a sensitive and thoughtful order. All the articles I read on relativism keep coming back to flaws of proof. If the proof is truly flawed and inadmissable, then one is left with the admission that believing the doctrine to be true is an act of faith. I think this is a viewpoint held by most philosophers and scientists, and it would be absurd to think that they were all as foolish as I am, so there may be some merit in trying to understand their point of view.
I hope none of this gets confused with the arrogance of many, that believe they have a right to impose their truth on others. As I said: I am agnostic when it comes to the possibility of ultimate reality. The relativity of perception is granted by all; The fact that nobody has ultimate awareness is granted by all except fools and maniacs. The fact that reason and empathy serve to narrow the gap between different perceptions, also seems to be fairly unassailable (which is something that I find very significant). So for me, not making an absolute statement about the nature of truth is one of principle. I'm sure the three of us approach the pragmatic task of living right , in much the same way.
Here is an article that I think is very fair, and thoughtful. I keep reading it over because I think it makes sense. I notice that he gives skepticism as the opposite of relativism. What do you two think?
ccmr.cornell.edu |
