Winter Break Essay No. 2: Relativism

3,261 characters2010.02.01

Modernity is accompanied by a certain nihilism, and that is natural: because the past is severed from the future, the present becomes a void point. But relativism is not necessarily nihilism; or rather, its aim is precisely the opposite. Relativism, or “relationism,” emphasizes not rupture but connection. Relativism does not accept an isolated point; any node has meaning only in the midst of the network of relations that interconnect it. Nihilism loses all aspiration, but relativism is not without aspiration; what it aspires to is connection.

Relativism does not reject certainty, but what is called certainty can be understood as those important “nodes” in the whole web of relations. These nodes are relatively stable; that is to say, they exist by relying on the relational structure in which they are situated, and in turn their existence provides solidity to the structures related to them. Relativism merely opposes that absolute certainty: abstract points set up outside the lifeworld and historical development, opposing that absolute certainty which can supposedly exist independently of any relation. While providing an illusory sense of certainty, that abstract certainty also creates the greatest sense of emptiness. Relativism is the inheritance of the classical philosophical tradition that pursued certainty, and by no means an approach that seeks “uncertainty.”

Many people make a childish objection to relativism: if everything is relative, then does that mean I can eat human flesh and commit massacres? Can any evil deed or fallacy escape criticism? This objection fails to understand the basic idea of relativism. Even if one says everything is relative, that by no means means everything is arbitrary, or that everything is beyond good and bad. I do not know why these two concepts, “relative” and “arbitrary,” are so often confused; they are in fact completely opposed concepts. The former emphasizes relatedness: it emphasizes that the rationality of some matter must be obtained only relative to certain solid things, in order to acquire corresponding solidity. If it can only be relative to some fragile foundation, then it is not solid enough—how could that be called an arbitrary matter? Relativists can not only have strong convictions, they can also criticize what is mistaken. Relativism supports its own convictions by invoking solid and reliable “relations,” and advances criticism by pointing out that certain things lack support. By contrast, if one says that an absolute reality must be presupposed before one can speak of right and wrong, then the result is that nothing can be spoken of at all—because by what right can you grasp that absolute thing? If you are not God, you have no authority to adjudicate. And relativists do not demand that they make such judgments; they emphasize the context of their own views and also point out the respective backgrounds of others. Right and wrong, good and evil, are not eternally fixed; they are spoken of within specific contexts. This attitude merely means that relativists have a clear awareness of the limits of their own capacities; in fact, it is a form of strong confidence: I, as myself, put forward my opinion—and “I” am a historical being; I make my claims precisely in the name of this real self. By contrast, the attitude of absolutists is one of great inferiority, even to the point of erasing the self. Absolutists make claims in the name of God or science or objectivity or truth, rather than acting in the name of the real self. The self, as a historical and relative being, is deprived of the right to speak. Absolutist discourse is built on an illusory, abstracted, self-abasing, and irresponsible attitude.