Cody asked:

I'm a self-read philosophy student. Is relativism a legitimate philosophy, or is it too general a term?
The way I see it, everything is relative, including absolute truths.

============

You put questions like this to a philosopher strictly at your own risk! You might find that it can be an
issue apt to raise quite a blast of passion, and in fact debate on it (very passionate!) goes all the way
back to the ancient Greeks. And truly I can't do better than to recommend some reading to you:
Plato's Protagoras,quite a wonderful (and surprisingly humorous) dialogue that you can read in little
more than an hour. Here Socrates, in debate with Protagoras (the man who uttered the famous
words: "Man is the measure of all things") shows why relativism is not a sound position to hold; and
then you might feel inspired to do a piece of your own trying to prove the contrary. That's important.
After all, you might be accused of merely holding to an unsubstantial opinion.

On that score, let me give you my opinion, which is that for you or anyone to say "The way I see it,
everything is relative" is not really enough; you need at least to add "relative TO . . ." and define a
little better what you mean by "everything". And when you do, you may discover that this ubiquitous
relativity is punctuated by a surprisingly high degree of hierarchical structure — among humans, in
nature, in physics, indeed everywhere you look. What I mean is this: that "dependence on" is such a
universal phenomenon that it is likely to cure you very quickly of the relativity position. Because once
something depends, relativity ends within that relationship. — Anyway, happy hunting!

Jurgen Lawrenz

Sydney

I don't know what a "legitimate" philosophy is. But relativism seems to be one. The first thing to ask
about a relativist philosophy is "relative to what"? Moral relativism is the doctrine that all moral beliefs
are relative to some particular society. The denial of relativism is not absolutism, but universalism.
Universalism is the view that there are (in the case of moral truths) universal moral truths: That is to
say, moral truths (maybe thou shalt not murder) true in all societies and cultures. According to the
moral relativist, what morally true in one society or culture (e.g. cannibalism is wrong in Western
Society) is false in other (cannibalistic) societies.

Ken Stern

As you suggest relativism can be used in a general way or with regards to specific issues. Used in a
general way however I think it is wrong for the following reason.

The main problem I see with relativism is that if it is true that everything is relative, then the
proposition that everything is relative is not an absolute truth but a relative truth. Now if truth is
relative to the individual (or whatever) then the truth that everything is relative on analysis becomes:

"Everything is relative for me."

But this cannot be an absolute truth so you get:

"Everything is relative for me, for me."

Again this can't be absolute and so a vicious regress is generated. On the other hand if the
proposition that everything is relative is an absolute truth then it makes itself false. The position then
that everything is relative leads either to a vicious regress, or to self refutation, as such it can be seen
to be a weak position.

On the other hand relativism when applied to other issues seems entirely plausible, for example
whether or not Marmite is nice, Elvis is pleasing, or a picture is beautiful. Hope this helps.

Mike Lee

Look, I don't mean to be insulting, but you need some disciplined instruction in philosophy. You just
can't ask a question like the first, and follow it with that second comment. They don't work together,
and that you didn't see that indicates to me that you need to find some coursework, a mentor, etc., in
this field. You canask whether "relativism" is "legitimate"... after you've defined your terms. I could
guess at what "relativism" means from various writings, but "legitimate"? What could that possibly
mean? True? Consistent? Applicable to something (what?)? Employed by people? I don't have the
slightest idea of what it could mean, and depending on that, an answer could be just about anything.
Then you ask whether "it" is too general a term. What, "relativism"? "Legitimate"? "Philosophy"?
They're all too general.

Then you follow with a contradiction. Why, just to be contentious? What purpose does that serve? If
you're really serious, then you have extremely non-standard meanings for "relative" and "absolute"
(assuming you've thought it through sufficiently to have reasonably well-defined meanings), and
again, how can one answer a question when the terms in which it's put are undefined, and seem
contradictory? You want absolute? Ok, try walking through the nearest wall. Whoops, now that's
pretty absolute, isn't it.

So my take on the above is that you need, as I say, some criticism, and some discipline. You might
try the program that Geoffrey K. runs from this site.

Steven Ravett Brown