by Daniel Troit

Created on: February 09, 2009

The appeal of relativism lies in its liberty. By declaring the demise of the absolute, one hopes to free oneself from the bounds of immovable knowledge. Certain minds, not sufficiently content with the freedom offered by their own free will, hope to extend their freedom beyond the rational limits of fact and into an abstraction so loose and intangible that it will in no way be able to confine them. The holes in such wishful thinking become immediately apparent, however, in the very assertion itself.

In the claim that truth is relative, one finds an absolute statement. It might as well be said that truth is "absolutely" relative and such a statement is inherently contradictory. The conflict arises in the fact that truth is the fulcrum by which we leverage every claim. In order to claim that something "is" or "isn't" such and such a way, one is stating that a certain truth is already in existence, by which their own assertion is "absolutely true". To claim that it is true that there is no truth is akin to speaking the statement, "nobody has ever spoken".

Perhaps the confusion lies in the definition of truth itself. When certain information is regarded as truth, we mean to say that regardless of observation or belief, the information remains factual. The tree falls in the forest according to the same laws every time, never taking note of whether a listener was present. By stating that certain factual information if relative, we have ceased to discuss truth. What we are now encountering is a description or interpretation of truth. While it is impossible to know the last detail in the minutia describing a particular fact, that in no way speaks to the fallibility of the truth itself. All that is being addressed is the limited nature of observation and description. Perception, interpretation and explanation are all variables, dependant on relative factors such as mood, preconception, comfort and intelligence. This is why there is so much variation in different descriptions of truth.

What is relative then, is not fact but interpretation. Truth is merely a word developed to describe a principle of absolutely correct knowledge. A relative truth then, would not be truth itself but a variable description. Once information becomes variable and relative, it is at least one degree removed from the truth itself. Those who claim that truth is relative have confounded the description of truth for truth itself. As with all arguments, this one is simply semantics. One side believes truth to mean absolute information, no matter how unknowable. The other side believes truth to be information, open to interpretation and revision.

The acceptance of truth as an absolute does not rupture or retard the freedom and individuality so dear to relativists. Restrictions placed upon everything equally, such as gravity, are no restraints at all. Absolutes provide us with the ground that supports us, not the walls that hold us. In a universe with absolutes, no privilege is awarded by truth. It is only the relativistic insistence upon fallacy that constrains us. A love of freedom is inextricably intertwined with a love for truth. A rejection of truth, as libertarian as it may seem, is nothing more than a refusal of the freedom awarded by absolutes and a wish to remain fettered by nothingness.

Learn more about this author, Daniel Troit.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.