Isn’t it ironic that even though we live at a time characterized by myriad inquiries on morality, religion, law, politics, global unity, global warming, existential purpose etc. there are some people who try to temper with the context of discussion by questioning the idea of what outcome would be considered as desirable or as truth? How then can the nature and integrity of an inquiry be sustained if Truth itself is held fluid?
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false,
while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”
The problem in holding Truth as relative or subjective thereof is that the logic is so inherently faulty that you might as well draw a one-ended stick. To deny that the Truth is absolute and exclusive is to affirm it at the same time. The idea stems from the stubborn observation that there is always some absolute. In other words, by denying that, you set up an absolute and exclusive statement or school of thought that would take the place of Truth and inherit all the characteristics thereof that you had a hard time gutting in first.
Politics and similar agendas! When you understand that politics is mainly about devising methods for governance and peace then you might understand why there is so much noise about Relativism. If ever we are going to have peace across the globe, Truth is the sacrifice. I’d call it exchanging one demon for another but I see why it’s more helpful than misleading that we stretch the bounds on tolerance a little more; even as far as tempering with something from which the integrity of humanity emanates. It’s a good thing they are holding the nature of truth constant in many aspects except in Religion and Philosophy. Oh, wait! What if they’re the aspects that matter most?
The “Look The Other Way” days are upon us. Buckle Up!