The Harmony of Relativism: Beyond the Absolute Shadows

General Philosophy
1

Actually, as you can see, all philosophies—nihilism, absurdism, existentialism, etc.—are just one-sided absolutes. What I mean is, great philosophers spend their lives trying to find a truth, but should we really be searching for truth or learning to live in harmony with chaos—something philosophers fear when they even mention it?

Regarding the relativity I’m talking about, it doesn’t negate all philosophies, but neither does it completely agree with all opinions formed on an absolute point of view. As you can see, everything has two sides: is sacrifice a noble virtue or a moral burden? Is loyalty a steadfastness or cowardice, a laziness to think outside the box? … In general, my relativity is about compromise, about empathy for both right and wrong. We shouldn’t be too absolute about anything because there’s always a counter-argument. Why not stand in the middle, where right and wrong intersect rather than cancel each other out?

It can be seen that thanks to a relative perspective, we can see other aspects of ideologies:
1.Existentialism: Is it a sentence of freedom or a gift with the condition of responsibility?
2.Nihilism: Is everything meaningless because death erases everything, or does death kill death to create spiritual life?
3.Dialectics: Is it a way to find an absolute essence, or simply an endless loop where we only see the relative within the relative?

It could be said that what we call relativity is what resolves all the problems of philosophical ideologies. It neither completely negates nor completely affirms.

So, does living relatively give us meaninglessness? No, for me, living relatively is the greatest lesson when we dare to live well even in the face of the evil of the chaotic flow without being shaken.

What do you think about it? Do you think you will disagree with me, but do you realize that it is also a form of relativity when I affirm and you deny? But it doesn’t deny you; instead, it connects your thoughts with mine, because only when someone points out the opposite does relativity form. Otherwise, it would be an absolute meaninglessness to the point that philosophical ideologies would explode.

So what do you think about relativity? Is it the key to unlocking all the rigid thinking of philosophical ideologies? Or is it also a valuable perspective that every person should possess?

1 Like
2

Welcome.

I don’t see why you would call nihilism or absurdism philosophies. Philosophy is the love of wisdom, but nihilism rejects wisdom and absurdism mocks it.

Regarding relativism. The idea that all claims are equally right or wrong might seem harmonious to you, but it’s intellectually lazy. If all knowledge would depend on one’s perspective, culture, habits etc., then why bother investigating the quality of arguments or evidence? Just say that anything goes.

Some rigorous relativism or skepticism can be interesting as methods in philosophy. To challenge seemingly certain ideas or assumptions is what philosophers do in order to weed out bad arguments. That’s love of wisdom.

3

If philosophy is truly the ‘love of wisdom,’ then why exclude the ‘wisdom of negation’ found in Nihilism or the ‘wisdom of paradox’ in Absurdism? Is wisdom a limited box to be owned, or a boundless flow to be explored?

​Seeking a single, fixed ‘Truth’ might not be a noble pursuit, but rather a subconscious fear of the chaotic flow of reality. You label relativism as ‘intellectual laziness,’ yet I see it as the most dynamic movement of thought. To be absolute is to be static—to be madly obsessed with only one side of a coin. To be relative is to force the mind into a continuous, multi-dimensional analysis of chaos.

​If wisdom is defined by the act of thinking without end, then relativism is its highest form. It does not mock wisdom; it prevents wisdom from becoming a dead, fossilized object. Is it not more ‘wise’ to embrace the whole of the chaos than to hide behind a single, comfortable certainty?

1 Like
4

I am a fanatic relativist, so I totally agree with what you wrote.
I would just add a few things.

I think that standing in the middle is quite a bad position, because “standing” means being static and you referred to this in your following post:

So, rather than a static position in the middle, I prefer a continuous ongoing, that goes through exhaggerations, the same way you are able to stay balanced on you bicycle for two reasons: because you move all the time and because you continuosly unbalance yourself, a bit in one direction and a bit in the other one.

I think the fundamental reason to be relativist is because everything flows, becomes, is dynamic, with a reference to Heraclitus.

Moreover, I think that the fundamental relation of everything, that makes everything relative, is not just the relation of each thing to each other thing, but especially the relation of each thing to ourselves. This way relativism can be revealed as something deeply connected to subjectivity. Then we should observe that the most radical meaning of subjectivity is when each of us feels themselves as a unique and inexpressible I, or we can say “a self”.
In conclusion, to me relativism is just the way to be human rather than being an object.

5

To clarify, when I speak of ‘standing’ in the middle, I am referring to a philosophical stance—a deliberate choice of path that refuses to be blinded by any single extreme. It is about maintaining a vantage point to observe the totality of chaos without being consumed by one side’s version of ‘Absolute Truth.’

​However, this stance is far from static. It is more like swimming in a vast, unpredictable ocean. I don’t just stand still; I constantly dive deep to avoid the crushing waves of radical Absolutes and surface again to breathe, to find meaning. This rhythmic movement—diving and surfacing while staying on my chosen path—is the true essence of ‘Relative Harmony.’ It is a dynamic balancing act of survival and awareness within the flow.

6

One reason relativism is so popular these days is that it serves the interests of the powerful. When postmodern professors “teach” the masses that truth, justice, or beauty are like arbitrary opinions, the powerful may find it easier to get away with anything, and dismiss any criticism as opinions.

Another reason is that many people fear knowledge. Learning to know things can hurt your feelings, refute your beliefs, etc. To relativise the facts neutralises them, and makes you appear more empathic or democratic even. Flat-earthers are just as right as astro-phycisists etc. It ain’t philosophy.

7

You claim that tyrants use relativism to justify their actions. But let’s be clear: a tyrant is not a relativist. A tyrant is someone who has chosen an Absolute Wrong and merely uses ‘relativism’ as a convenient mask to evade criticism. If someone uses it as an excuse, they aren’t practicing relativism; they are abusing it.

​You compare me to a ‘Flat-earther,’ but ironically, you are the one who resembles them. A Flat-earther is an Absolutist—they are obsessed with one fixed, unshakeable dogma and refuse to see any other side. Relativism never fears the truth; truth is a destination. But if there were such a thing as a ‘Final Absolute Truth,’ wouldn’t you be the one afraid of it? Without the negation of truth, truth itself becomes a meaningless, static fact of life.

​Every ‘Absolute’ is just a fragment within the ‘Relative.’ You think I am afraid, but the one truly in fear is the person who clings to a certainty without knowing if it’s right or wrong. Relativism is not a finish line; it is a tool for continuous thought. If they use it to justify their crimes, they have already abandoned the very essence of relativism.

8

Indeed. But here you suggest that a tyrant chose an absolute wrong, whereas in your OP you declare everything has two sides, have empathy for both, and so on. Do you have empathy for a tyrant’s use of relativism? Or are you moving the goal posts as it suits you?

I did not. An example of relativism is the idea that astro-physics and flat-earth-belief are equally true.

Sounds good, but it looks like you’re holding on to relativism as if it was absolutism.

Here’s a classic quote:

“These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”
-Groucho Marx

2 Likes
9

Some initial thoughts from me as an aspirational, half-arsed anti-foundationalist. There are some confusions here, and it doesn’t seem to be presenting an argument for relativism.

This list of related subjects doesn’t really amount to all of philosophy. You seem to have a particular interest in existentialism. Was that your starting point? What does your position say about Platonic Forms, Kant’s noumena, or phenomenology? How does your model approach a deflationary theory of truth, for instance?

This doesn’t seem to be relativism. It looks more like agnosticism. In the absence of knowing which account is true, you remain uncommitted. Can you demonstrate that standing in the middle between right and wrong is meaningful? If you insist that it is, you are undermining your own argument, because that would itself be an absolutist claim.

But isn’t the task to work out which of the arguments is accurate? And again isn’t your framing here itself absolute?

You’ve already committed yourself to the idea that there is a right and a wrong. Relativism rejects this position; you’ve picked a more traditional, dualistic picture of the world, where every question reduces to two opposed options. How did you arrive at that view?

Saying we should “stand in the middle” where right and wrong cancel each other out looks like a category mistake. If right and wrong genuinely exist, on what basis do you claim they meet in the middle? For example, if killing children for sport is wrong, where exactly is the “middle ground” between killing and not killing?

This doesn’t seem to make sense. “Death kills death to create spiritual life” what does that mean? Also, there are many forms of nihilism, and that formulation isn’t particularly philosophical.

That’s not relativism. Relativism, by my undertanding, does not seek to resolve anything; that’s the point of relativism.

Also, if you’re saying this is how we should live, then you’re not a relativist. You’re just advocating for a value system that attempts to aim for some form of balance.

1 Like
10

I don’t know about relativism.

But the relative, that pops up all of the time.

A ball is half red and half blue, and from where I am sitting, it looks like it’s all red, and from where you are sitting, it looks all blue.

So relative to me, the statement “the ball is red” is reasonable and can be intended honestly. Relative to you, your opinion “no, the ball is blue” is also reasonable and can be explained and intended honestly as well.

If you are saying that the color of the ball is relative, and neither “the ball is red” nor “the ball is blue” can be said to be true or false with any certainty or in any “truth”, then relativism sort of defeats a major function of speech and communication. Relativism diffuses the “uni” in com—uni-cation.

Shouldn’t the philosopher, the lover of wisdom, like the scientist, seek to figure out why such different points of view build such different assertions about the same ball? Is it the same ball? And dig into the situation until they both might even change their own minds and instead agree, “the ball is half red and half blue”?

Philosophy doesn’t just give up on controversy. Philosophy seeks to confirm there is a controversy, and then see if there is something to be learned from it, and even better, learn something we all can see, regardless of our relatively different positions in life.

11

If I’ve followed your argument, you note the variety and incompatibility of the various grand narratives, and conclude that each is right in its own context, or some such form of relativity of truth.

An alternative is to note that they cannot all be right, but that they can all be wrong.

Why not reject the presumption that there is one true grand narrative? Why not accept that each might be partially true, yet incomplete, and that no such grand narrative can ever be complete?

Relativism is not the only way to reject the absolute shadows.

1 Like
12

Welcome! The title of your first discussion is intellectually intriguing: The Harmony of Relativism: Beyond the Absolute Shadows. A book in progress?
But then, you start with:

The reader is taken aback - what do you mean by listing apparently ‘one-sided absolutes’ as ‘all philosophies’. You choose existentialism as an example. However, this is a broad church - within it lies a wide range of philosophical ideas of overlapping concerns. It is also, only one part of philosophy. So, why the focus?

Are they the ‘great philosophers’? Why? Is it the great theme of ‘existential anxiety’ - the ‘why’ of life and meaning?
Again, this is not one-sided or absolute, is it?

You ask whether we really should be searching for truth or learning to live in harmony with chaos.

If I understand correctly, you describe chaos as a fear of philosophers - which philosophers?

Do you mean the absolutists - who seem to require rigidity (stasis) in holding certain truths. This compared with arguably more flexible and dynamic relativists.

Already, we have a picture of what?
Chaos? Or difference? Right or wrong? Light and dark?

I like the way you talk about ‘your’ relativity in terms of ‘empathy for both right and wrong’.

That is your personal perspective: a positioning of how we should think and behave. Then, there seems to be an assumption that we can find ‘harmony’ by standing at the intersection of both ‘right’ (relativism) and ‘wrong’ (absolutism).

Is this going ‘beyond the shades’ of absolutism?

One suggestion is that this is too simple an antithesis.

There will always be inter-subjective views playing amidst a setting of what may be described as universal patterns. Not only of a sect of Western philosophy.

For example, in literature and language, similar stories are shared or different experiences. Ways of living - or how best to live.

I’ve just participated in April’s Reading Group of William James’ The Will to Believe’.

Amongst other roles (e.g. psychologist), he is a student lecturer, and religiously inclined empiricist.

James surprised me by arguing that the greatest empiricists are such only on reflection. When left to instincts, ‘they dogmatise like infallible popes’.

If we are all absolutists, then James argues that we must, if possible, free ourselves. It is a ‘weakness of our nature’ (Section VI)

If you look at philosophical discussions, they deal with important issues of which there are many subjective opinions. Some of which derive from a certain, apparently, inflexible stance.

That is fair enough - if there has been study, experience and a deal of objective/subjective reflection. This can include listening to a variety of theories. Like yours. ’ My relativism’.

I have always claimed flexibility in thought and so, more of a relativist than absolutist. The latter I tend to think of as not listening and dismissive of others.
However, what ‘relativism’ is and its functions are open to question. I doubt whether ‘harmony’ can be found in a single philosophy. There is a natural chaos in life. But perhaps in the person, the individual - we don’t live forever in a state of darkness but shades and tones of colour.

Isn’t it time to move beyond this interminable Either/Or scenario…

There are so many good positions on this. I rather like this:

What do you see as the ‘absolute shadows’?

13

Welcome !

I’m Team Relativism with you. That’s context for the rest of my feedback.

  1. We might speculate that all people seek some kind of ideological equilibrium. Even a professed relativist has decided, for now, on a costume for the theoretical stage. You argue for the merits of your own position. That makes sense to me. A ripened relativist doesn’t offer “truth” but only the virtues as they currently understand them of their current position. A relativist knows that YMMV. One size does not fit all.
  2. The quote above reminds me of passages in Nietzsche. I’m curious whether he’s an influence. Personally, I think he’s a great philosopher on the whole, but a relativist can raid the junkyard for parts, without bringing home an entire car.

The coin with two sides is one of my favorite metaphors. We might speculate that the world is a coin with a side for every sentient creature therein. World-for-me, world-for-you, world-for-Larry, world-for-Sue.

I also like your emphasis of empathy. Judgement ( condemnation ) can get in the way of understanding. “Fear is the mindkiller.” And hate is sand in the eyes.

I’m basically with you on all of this. I’d just personally emphasize that this kind of attitude is not necessarily possible or comfortable for everyone.

20

Oh boy, I was so impressed with you… And then I saw the rapid succession of your posts.
You’re cheapening the quality of thought, of your thought, by using AI.

21

Such a pity. I note @KhoiPhan has been ‘silenced’, after removal of their posts. Reason: they were AI-generated.

I hope there will be a chance for the poster to edit the AI responses ( if saved) to give voice to their own words and thoughts.

I have a copy of the AI reply in my emails. However, I believe I can’t use it in discussion…is that correct @Jamal?

1 Like
22

That’s right. Since it was AI-generated, it can’t be quoted.

23

There is a difference between ‘quoting’ AI generated content and ‘using’ it.

Is it not possible to interpret the content of the post with a view to reply to relevant points and answers made?

24

If you’re not going to quote or copy the AI-generated text, then there’s no problem.

1 Like
25

Thank you for the clarification. Good to know I have the option. It may be better for the original poster to re-write once they get their voice back…

27

I just returned with a new account. I hope everyone doesn’t think I used AI to write my arguments, but only used it to translate English and convert my language into English.

Ill try my best to improve my english skills while im stuyding in school :sob::sob: