Refuting Relativism

When we look at the issue of whether or not relativism is true, you have to understand something. What I'm going to be talking about here might be a little bit difficult to follow intellectually, but if you listen to it several times, it'll make sense.

Please be patient. So how do we deal with relativism? Is it easy to refute? Well, yes it is.

Relativism is the philosophical position that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual.

But if we look further at this, we can see that this proposition is not logical. In fact, it is self -refuting.

Let's take a look at the idea that all truth is relative. Now check this out. If all truth is relative, then the statement, all truth is relative, would be absolutely true.

If it is absolutely true, then not all things are relative and the statement that all truth is relative is false.

Now what about the idea that people say, hey, you know, there are no absolute truths? Well, that statement doesn't work either because to say that is to make an absolute statement or an absolute truth statement and that refutes the statement itself.

So that can't work. How about when someone says, well, what is true for you is not true for me?

Okay, if what is true for you, now check this out, now I gotta think, if what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false?

If you say no, then what is true for me is not true for me, and relativism is false.

If you say yes, then relativism is false. If you say that is only true for me, that relativism is false, then

I am believing something other than relativism, namely that relativism is false, as being an absolute truth that it's false.

If that is true, then how can relativism be true? Am I believing a premise that is true or false or neither?

If it is true for me that relativism is false, then relativism within me holds the position that relativism is false.

This is self -contradictory. If it is false for me that relativism is false, then relativism isn't true because what is true for me is not said to be true for me.

If you say that it is neither true or false, then relativism isn't true, since it states that all views are equally valid, and by not being at least true, relativism is shown to be wrong.

If I believe that relativism is false, and if it is true only for me that it is false, then you must admit that it is absolutely true that I am believing that relativism is false.

If you admit that it is absolutely true that I'm believing relativism is false, then relativism is defeated since you admit there is something absolutely true.

If I am believing in something other than relativism that is true, then there is something other than relativism that is true, even if it is only for me.

Now, this is pretty tough, I know, but we're not done yet. You see, if relativism is true, then we have to look at this.

If there is something other than relativism that is true, then relativism is false. No one can know anything for sure.

If that is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything for sure, which again is self -defeating.

Or how about people say, well, that's your reality, not mine. Okay, well, is my reality real? If my reality is different than yours, how can my reality contradict your reality?

If yours and mine are equally real, how can two opposite realities that exclude each other really exist at the same time?

We all perceive what we want. How do you know that the statement is true?

If we all perceive what we want, then what we are wanting to perceive is what we perceive. If you say you want to perceive truth, how do you know if you are not deceived?

Simply desiring truth is no proof you have it. You may not use logic. You may not be able to refute relativism this way.

Why not? Can you give me a logical reason why logic cannot be used to refute relativism?

And if you do that, if you use logic to refute relativism, then on what basis is relativism true?

See, it has nothing. Nothing would then be absolutely true. Nothing would be able to be refuted by logic, which is based on truth.

If you use relativism to refute logic, then relativism has lost its relative status since it is used to absolutely refute the truth of something else.

We're only perceiving different aspects of the same reality. That's something else that people say. If our perceptions are contradictory, can either perception be trusted?

Is truth self -contradictory? If it were, then it wouldn't be true because it would be self -refuting.

If something is self -refuting, then it isn't true. If it is true that we are perceiving different aspects of the same reality, then

I am believing something that is false since I believe that your reality is not true. How then could they be the same reality?

If you're saying that it is merely my perception that is not true, then relativism is refuted. If I am believing something that is false, then relativism is not true since it holds that all views are equally valid.

If my reality is that your reality is false, then both cannot be true. If both are not true, then one of us or both is in error.

If one or both of us is in error, then relativism is not true. Some people say that relativism itself is excluded from the critique that it is absolutely self -refuting.

Okay, then on what basis do you simply exclude relativism from the critique of logic?

Is this an arbitrary act? If so, does it justify your position? If it is not arbitrary, what criteria did you use to exclude it?

To exclude itself from the start is an admission of the logical problems inherent in its system of thought.

This is why relativism doesn't work. There are absolute truths and to say that there are no absolute truths is self -refuting.