We intend Relativism as the Latin ‘elevatio’.

Let us start with “descriptive moral relativism”. It holds that people disagree about what is moral and what is not. Nonetheless, this ‘relativism’ expresses no judgement about the actual differences. It only says “different moral values coexist”.

American philosopher Richard Rorty complains that ‘relativist’ has become a dirty word. Also he specifies that relativists simply believe “that the grounds for choosing between [philosophical] opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought“. In the end, he makes clear that a relativist does not think that each idea is as valid as any other.

We use RELATIVISM to convey the idea that interpretations of reality strictly depend on the interpreter. 

Although eyes work in the same way, everyone sees the objects of the world with different details. And although minds work in the same way, our thoughts differ from one another in a number of ways.

We intend Relativism as the Latin ‘elevatio’. A disputable form of RELATIVISM tends to push people toward the refusal of all positions. It is a form of nihilism. It derives from the impossibility to establish what is TRUE and what is FALSE. And the impasse becomes even bigger when it comes to big issues like the existence of God, soul, evil, destiny.

Our RELATIVISM is only OPEN-MINDEDNESS and READINESS. Our fallibility simply suggests a wise ACCEPTANCE of the existence of all positions. Then we are free to adhere to a certain explanation, to a certain theory, to a certain religious faith. But we decide after exerting our personal <freedom of choice>.

In conclusion, RELATIVISM is the refusal of its very opposite which is ‘absolutism’.

This is Sokratiko’s way to interpret the notion of RELATIVISM. Please continue to browse our list of philosophical TOPICS by clicking on the other entries of our list.