Let’s put an end to this question once and for all.
The question is: is truth absolute or relative?
I was inspired to ask this question and start this thread by recent claim made by James S. Saint that truth is established by lack of alternative.
The concept of lack of alternative presupposes impossibility and impossibility is an absolute. The implication is that the boundaries of perception, and of motion in general, are objective, set by the universe, rather than subjective, set by the subject. The subject, it is said, merely identifies, correctly or incorrectly, the universal boundaries – the “no”, the “false”, the “bad” and the “ugly”.
This implies that there is such a thing as Truth – single, absolute, permanent, immutable truth – that is discovered through Reason.
It implies that subjects do not need to adapt themselves continually, without a break, but only until they find that one place in the universe where they can let themselves go and live without suffering unpleasant consequences.
That would be absolutism. Or more precisely, absolute objectivism; what Biguous simply calls “objectivism”.
Now, when I speak of relativism, it must be noted, I do not refer to what is normally referred to by the word relativism. Relativism, as commonly used, and as promoted by Biguous, is in actuality a form of absolutism – absolute subjectivism.
If absolute objectivism is the belief that there is only one truth and multiple falsities – non-truths, proto-truths and half-truths – then absolute subjectivism is the belief that there is no truth but only plurality of opinions each one of which is equal to every other opinion.
The former assumes absolute truth. The latter assumes absolute lack of it.
Relativism can be better described by words such as traditionalism and naturalism since it does not rely on God, Reason or Democracy but on tradition and nature which are relative rather than absolute (there is no Tradition and no Nature.)
Relativism is also known as perspectivism, the idea that truth is a matter of perspective but that perspectives are not equal.
The relevant question is: do absolutes exist?
There is no absolute vantage point, no God’s-eye view, no position of omniscience, from which we can observe the entirety of the universe.
Our view is only ever partial and never complete.
How can we claim that absolutes exist then?
In the absence of absolutes, both James and Biguous are wrong.