Some thoughts on relativism / absolutes

Are you reading this right now? RIGHT now. Not at any other point in time, but right this second are your eyes casting across this word >>>HERE<<< ?

If you can answer yes to that question, what you have just done is define and acknowledge an absolute truth in reality. Really, in the real world, you did something at an exact moment which happened neither at any other time or in any other fashion to the way in which it actually happened. You actually read the word 'here', at the exact second in which you read it, and everything was as it actually was, as you read it. It happened no other way. That is how time and space collided in that instant, and that instant occured. That is fact, truth and logical. You experienced it and possibly witnesses did too. You can also do controlled tests to see if similar events can be reproduced with measurable constance (for example, you could read it again). So ... what?

Let me give a few points, here. If Bristol City score a goal against Bristol Rovers, then for the goal scorer, the rest of the City team, , the fans of City and their Manager - this is a good thing. However, from the point of view of Bristol Rovers and their fans? It's a set back and a bad thing. This is what is known as a relative truth; it can be shown in controlled tests to be relative to one's cultural point of view (for example, you can test the brain responses in a City fan and a Rovers fan to see if a Rovers fan will ever think City scoring is exciting or good). To a person who supports neither team or maybe doesn't even like football, the result could matter not one iota, or the goal could be purely judged on footballing skill.

However, apply this to the first example. Then also consider this - The number 8 bus arrives at the bus stop on time, at exactly 8:00am GMT by the atomic clock. There are two people waiting for the bus at this stop, and both have exactly timed watches showing this bus is here at 8am, though they are not checking them all the time.

They board the bus. Later someone asks them if the bus was on time. One says yes it was indeed on time. The other states that it was not on time, because that is his perception, he felt the bus was one minute late. Neither can prove this because they didn't check their watches as they boarded.

Now, it is absolutely true that the bus did in fact arrive at 8am. This is what took place, in reality. The bus did not arrive at the stop at 7:59am, or 8:01am. It arrived at 8:00am, reguardless of the man's perception on the kerb. It was there exactly when it was there, and an external police CCTV camera can verify to the milisecond that it was indeed, on time.

So then, the bus stopping when it did is an absolute truth, an absolute occurance in space and time, that we can test and repeat with consistant, logically deductable results (if we get the bus to pull up again at 8am exactly, it will be there at 8am).

This may sound logical and obvious - almost absurd to state thus. The issue here is with relativism and absolutes. According to the relativist, absolutes do not occur nor exist - that is the technical definition and the correct position description. I personally know of no relativsist who actually lives this way though; they expect predictable actions such as a toaster to pop up with cooked bread after use, water to flow through their toilet after they pull the handle and people to be angry if they shout 'screw you!' across the street at them.

The trouble then arises when debating 'is there such a thing as absolute truths in the world?' with them.

If you say there isn't, for a start, you are asserting an absolute right there and then. Secondly and as we've just seen, there are clearly demonstratable and repeatable absolute truths in reality, that correspond to testing.

There is a counter. If blue is only blue to you and it's red to me, what we're arguing about is a point of view. But this also cannot work as a moral argument for things like 'killing or stealing is wrong'. You see, in reality the counter is 'a colour'. What we decide to call that colour is up to us, but it is in actual fact, a specific colour. Every object has a set of attributes at any given nanosecond in time, and whatever those are, they are true. The counter cannot be both literally blue and red at the same time, it can be a colour that I call blue and you call red, however. But this can be tested with science, the properties of the counter measured without the use of the iris, either mine or yours. We can know the counter using instruments.

There is a human being. He is not literally you, and literally me at the same time. Someone might mistake you for me ... we may even look alike or have very similar traits. But I am testably me, and you are testably you. In time and space, we are not the same person.

Perception seems to be the only place where relativism actually works out. What is truth for me is not truth for you? Back to the goal experiment - if I am a City fan and you're a Rovers fan, it's true for me that the goal scored by City against Rovers was a good thing. It's true for you that the goal scored was a bad thing. But, this is a relative truth. Absolutes as shown above, are different. They are not merely points of view based on cultural, social or personal variations, however tiny (chaos theroy - butterly effect etc).

So, whilst Relativism does work for certain truths (Relative Truths), it doesn't work whatsoever for absolute truths.

The Relativist will argue there is no such thing as an absolute truth. However, science shows this to be wrong. The tests above clearly show that logically, mathamatically and scientifically (all free from propaganda or opinion, because they can be repeated in controlled environments and they won't change), some things at any given second in time, are so and are not subject to a point of view from anyone. For example, the sun rises and sets at different points to the position of a human watching on the earth, but what never changes is the measurements of the sun (Sol), it's heat, it's mass, diametre, position in space and many other measurable, testable attributes. The sun literally exists and it literally is what it is. This is not based on opinion or the perspective of a human on earth - or any creature anywhere in the universe for that matter.

There are absolute truths. These can be measured. Other truths are relative and the difference between the two is fairly obvious to anyone who wants to know.

Therefore, true Relativism cannot be a workable method for deciding truth or one's path through philosophy. It can shed light onto certain areas which are cultural and arguable to a point, but where absolutes are concerned, it renders nothing but rather ridiculous-sounding arguments like 'I was here, but I also wasn't here'.