“Absolute” relativism revisited

I was discussing absolute relativism or just “relativism” a bit more yesterday on #libervis IRC channel on irc.freenode.net where as it turned out we already have at least a couple of relativists, one of them being a voluntaryist. I’m just still not sure whether I can call them absolute relativists as the way I described it in my last blog entry doesn’t necessarily describe them.

Their basic premise seems to be that all reality is dependent on the mind and what it perceives since anything that it doesn’t perceive it can’t also consider to be “real”. The reason this doesn’t necessarily reflect the belief that truth is only what you choose it to be is that it is based in perception more than deliberate choice or in other words, perception rather than conception. So a relativist who isn’t absolute in the sense I’ve described previously, but only in the sanse that all we see as real depends on mind perceiving it as such, wouldn’t necessarily say everything he conceives as truth is truth and everything he conceives as false is false. He would just say that everything he perceives as truth and finds to be true by logical and empirical observation of and within “his” reality, is true.

I can’t say I have much of a problem with that assertion. I just think it’s pretty useless and irrelevant. The only thing that it really means is that there is a possibility that reality I am perceiving is just some sort of an illusion or that absolute external or objective reality doesn’t exist. But by definition it can’t deny its existence either. I could practically come up with the same kind of conclusion from my default stand point as well; which is that external objective reality exists, for all I know, but all I see is my “subjective” reality and it is an attempt at copying the objective reality on which it builds. So I too can say that I could be perceiving a mere illusion or that the nature of external reality is that it doesn’t exist, or whatever.

So I’m basically, and have been for a while, more of a relativist than not. The difference, if there’s any, seems to be merely semantical. Even relativists like my friends on #libervis would say that they live as if the reality they perceive is truly real. I can say the same thing in different words; I live knowing that reality I perceive is based on reality that is objective and absolute. It might be coming down to a difference between assuming what may or may not be and just deciding to make the assumption into “knowledge” based upon the observation of reality in question itself. It may seem illogical, but within the framework of relativism it really isn’t. If I can assume that the orange in front of me is real to the point of acting on that assumption as if it was absolute knowledge, it practically ceases to matter whether I’m calling the assumption an assumption or “knowledge”.

But you can see now why relativist statements like this are seldom useful or relevant. It’s more of mental entertainment than anything else.

Still, there’s an interesting observation to be made. If you claim that there is a possibility that you don’t exist, you’re making a self-destructive claim because in order to make that claim you have to exist. A relativist would say, though, that this statement “existence precedes the ability to make the claim” is based upon the observation rather than reality itself.

But then again a relativist can say this sort of thing for anything at all. There’s no standard. Again, this is why it is simply irrelevant, useless mental masturbation.

Here’s another interesting case. You and your friend are observing paintings in a gallery and stop by a particular painting. You tell your friend that you see a painting of a red car and your friend confirms it. His confirmation could in one sense be taken as evidence that reality you perceive as real is actually in common with his own and thus there is a single reality encompassing both of you. Yes, if you were to look through his own mind you might see what your own mind would call a green color, but that doesn’t matter. It’s the same pattern (as Taco mentioned in last entry’s comments) and his confirmation proves that the same pattern exists in both of your perceived realities.

Now, a relativist could deal that away by simply saying that your friend could also be just a figment of your imagination since perceiving him requires your mind. Can you see how useless relativism is?

Because seriously, I think one of the smartest things you can say to such statements is “so what”. It simply doesn’t matter. To conceive (or fantasize) of the possibility that your friend is just a figment of your own mind matters not to the fact that you’re still seeing him. And my gut would tell me that it is more likely that he is real than that he is imagined. And if that isn’t enough for a relativist then I can just say that I’d rather for my own sanity assume he is real than not, and it wouldn’t be contradictory to the relativist point because such an assumption is just as valid as any other.

And that again shows simply the intangibility, irrelevance, uselessness and mental masturbation inherent in absolutely relativistic statements and “beliefs”.

By relativist admission alone whatever you prefer to believe about the nature of reality you can believe, but according to that reality in question itself (including logic and empirical evidence derived from it), it proves its own existence. Nothing else matters.

There’s also an argument to be made similar to the one christians would use to keep believing in God except I personally believe it makes far more sense here: Pascal’s wager. The reason I think it’s far more applicable here is because unlike with the existence of God (I’m sure christians would disagree though) everything you perceive seems to scream reality is real whereas it requires positive effort to keep reminding yourself that it couldn’t be. And since both propositions are equally valid it wouldn’t be wrong to say reality does exist outside of your mind while it would be prudent to do so in order to account for the tendency of perceive reality to suggest just that.

I would suggest that you will live a more productive and happy life if you assume reality as real and your friends as real people than if you constantly entertain the idea that you’re just hallucinating.

Whether you’ll take that suggestion or not is up to you.

Tags: Philosophy