Categories
- Art (314)
- Other (3,256)
- Philosophy (2,326)
- Psychology (3,455)
- Society (837)
Recent Questions
- Can we say that the view that science is the highest true and only form of knowledge is an unproven ideology?
- What would you think of a person who says "There are devils in a quiet pool"?
- What if my boyfriend loves me, but is terribly jealous and doesn't trust me?
- Why doesn't anarchism work?
- Does love exist?
From the relativist's point of view, all knowledge is relative, and absolute truth is unattainable. The New Philosophical Encyclopedia points out: “The formulation of the principle of relativism, as the unreliability and relativity of all knowledge, is first found in the ancient Greek sophists Protagoras and Gorgias, later in ancient skepticism, as well as in Modern skepticism and in English empiricism.”
Thus, from the relativist's point of view, any knowledge is only partial, relative, and does not affect the true nature of reality. Materialism, on the other hand, speaks about such a nature, noting that true reality is the matter of which everything consists. Thus, a relativist cannot be a materialist, and a materialist cannot call himself a relativist.
However, it is worth remembering that in addition to relativism in a broad sense, there are also more specific varieties of relativism. For example, moral relativism insists that there is no absolute good or absolute evil, that good and evil exist only for someone (for example, the immune system- “good” for humans and “evil” for bacteria) or have meaning only in some culture (for example, in our culture the idea of the value of human life makes sense, and in the culture of some aboriginal cannibals here we are talking only about food value). Moral relativism can be combined with both materialism and idealism.