Relativism. The word “relativism” means everything—like culture, morality, art, and law—is subjective. That is, there’s no outside or external view of something. For example, the relativist believes there is no way for a Westerner to make a moral judgment about women’s rights in Pakistan. That’s because any judgment the Westerner would make is from their particular cultural perspective. In other words, there’s no way to step outside of a system and make an independent, objective judgment. Another way to think about this is that there’s no God’s-Eye view of anything. Things are just true for some people and not true for other people. And because everything is viewed from a particular position, there is no objective truth.
I love your sub stack because I learn something every time. Very accessible to the layperson. The he last year especially has seen a dearth of rationality so when I read your essays, it is also a source of hope. thank you.
The rise in atheism led to the rise of relativism. The lack of objective truth is not good for society, as shown by the rising divorce rates, rising suicide rates, declining marriage rates, etc. I’ll also add, as a psychologist, even my field is suffering from relativism, where colleagues are afraid to diagnose certain people for fear of backlash. Mental illness should not go undiagnosed nor over-diagnosed, but it seems psychologist have, as of lately, adopted the mantra that “it’s just their truth”.
Don't forget to factor in the anti-intellectual promotion of nihilism so characteristic of relativism. It has been painful to watch, and there will be more hell to pay.
The problem with the relativist argument is that one can not base an economy on a relativism. If we were to go to the Farmer's Market to buy heirloom tomatoes, we would find that the market has already created a hierarchy based on what the customers want to buy and are willing to pay. And we would find that the customers who make the market are the most experienced diners who care the most about finding good tomatoes. Academics, mainly sociologists, claim that these hierarchies are social constructs and indeed this is half right. But what they miss is that there is no other group of people driving categorization of quality and pricing. That's because the relativist position has no market value. It's worthless and their argument leads nowwhere and should be avoided.
Haha. "Woke relativist" is a contradiction in itself. But you are right; relativism can lead into wild directions.
Relativism makes sense from a sociological position. Its general claim of a socially constructed world is hard to knock down.
But relativism is easily abused, including by the leftists and the woke crowd. Narcissists sometimes use relativism in a horrible way.
The sociological claim of social construction is a fundamental one. It means that you have to consider everything as socially constructed, including the activism of activists, the leftism of leftists, the faith of the faithful, etc. All that stuff is essentially relative.
It even includes the coding of your own emotions. Expressing your emotions in words involves you using socially constructed categories. Sociology is powerful.
It seems that those who uphold cultural relativism are paradoxically interested in critiques of the past based on the mores of today (i.e. tearing down Jefferson statues). Is that simply because their critiques of the past are of the past of the West, which is exempt from relativism under this worldview? Simultaneously, those of us who critique cultural/moral relativism would probably also make the argument that we shouldn't judge the past through today's standards, which would seem to be a kind of cultural relativism afterall. Does this mean there is a time-constrained element to a consistent application of principles here? And if so, where are the delineation markers to how far back in history it is acceptable to judge, and who decides that? Genuine question.
I likely didn’t make up the term but I’ve been using the description of Freudo-Marxist-Relatvism for a few decades now to describe the inside forces that are looking to take down Western civilization.
The woke culture contradicts themselves, again. In a moral reasoning class, it is considered a "slippery-slope" argument.
I lived in Kazakhstan for a few years, and many Kazakhs expressed misgivings towards human rights groups. I would say the vast majority of Kazakhs are highly opposed to "Bride-Kidnapping}. including the government but have a difficult time garnering support from human rights organizations simply because such organizations, fear it violates their culture.
I love your sub stack because I learn something every time. Very accessible to the layperson. The he last year especially has seen a dearth of rationality so when I read your essays, it is also a source of hope. thank you.
The rise in atheism led to the rise of relativism. The lack of objective truth is not good for society, as shown by the rising divorce rates, rising suicide rates, declining marriage rates, etc. I’ll also add, as a psychologist, even my field is suffering from relativism, where colleagues are afraid to diagnose certain people for fear of backlash. Mental illness should not go undiagnosed nor over-diagnosed, but it seems psychologist have, as of lately, adopted the mantra that “it’s just their truth”.
Don't forget to factor in the anti-intellectual promotion of nihilism so characteristic of relativism. It has been painful to watch, and there will be more hell to pay.
The problem with the relativist argument is that one can not base an economy on a relativism. If we were to go to the Farmer's Market to buy heirloom tomatoes, we would find that the market has already created a hierarchy based on what the customers want to buy and are willing to pay. And we would find that the customers who make the market are the most experienced diners who care the most about finding good tomatoes. Academics, mainly sociologists, claim that these hierarchies are social constructs and indeed this is half right. But what they miss is that there is no other group of people driving categorization of quality and pricing. That's because the relativist position has no market value. It's worthless and their argument leads nowwhere and should be avoided.
Haha. "Woke relativist" is a contradiction in itself. But you are right; relativism can lead into wild directions.
Relativism makes sense from a sociological position. Its general claim of a socially constructed world is hard to knock down.
But relativism is easily abused, including by the leftists and the woke crowd. Narcissists sometimes use relativism in a horrible way.
The sociological claim of social construction is a fundamental one. It means that you have to consider everything as socially constructed, including the activism of activists, the leftism of leftists, the faith of the faithful, etc. All that stuff is essentially relative.
It even includes the coding of your own emotions. Expressing your emotions in words involves you using socially constructed categories. Sociology is powerful.
It seems that those who uphold cultural relativism are paradoxically interested in critiques of the past based on the mores of today (i.e. tearing down Jefferson statues). Is that simply because their critiques of the past are of the past of the West, which is exempt from relativism under this worldview? Simultaneously, those of us who critique cultural/moral relativism would probably also make the argument that we shouldn't judge the past through today's standards, which would seem to be a kind of cultural relativism afterall. Does this mean there is a time-constrained element to a consistent application of principles here? And if so, where are the delineation markers to how far back in history it is acceptable to judge, and who decides that? Genuine question.
I likely didn’t make up the term but I’ve been using the description of Freudo-Marxist-Relatvism for a few decades now to describe the inside forces that are looking to take down Western civilization.
The woke culture contradicts themselves, again. In a moral reasoning class, it is considered a "slippery-slope" argument.
I lived in Kazakhstan for a few years, and many Kazakhs expressed misgivings towards human rights groups. I would say the vast majority of Kazakhs are highly opposed to "Bride-Kidnapping}. including the government but have a difficult time garnering support from human rights organizations simply because such organizations, fear it violates their culture.