Friedrich Nietzsche by Edvard Munch
Following up on Peter Blair’s post that we linked to yesterday, Sarah Ngu writes at Fare Forward about the shortcomings of the typical Christian arguments against relativism.
“Relativizing the relativizer” only works if the relativist “actually [cares] about having an airtight, logically consistent worldview,” which not all people do, she points out. And some people are relativists not merely “out of a desire to be their own master” but also “out of a sense of injustice, because they associate capital T ‘Truth’ with historical injustice.” Ngu explains:
In the 19th century, it was True that Africans and Asians were somehow less human. In the early 20th century, it was True that women were not to be trusted with voting rights. It is no wonder then that the postmodern tends to suspects an Oz-like wizard behind the flashy projections of “Truth.” The standard apologetics’ explanation for relativism is often traced back to thinkers like Friedrich Nietzsche, but the real question is why his argument that the powerful define truth begins to seem more and more plausible.
I hadn’t thought about the attraction of relativism in quite these terms before, but my own limited experience with today’s young relativists—or rather, selective relativists, as most of them believe in at least a few moral and metaphysical absolutes—would fit her explanation. My relativistic friends aren’t just self-seeking hedonists or lazy metaphysicians. Rather, they’re skeptical of truth claims because historically, many people have indeed used them to justify cruelty. Ngu’s conclusion:
The Gospel is a meta-narrative whose truth is not to be denied, but rather substantiated and backed up, not just by sophisticated arguments for truth and morality, but also by standing for the widow, the fatherless and the orphan, or whoever is weak and powerless amongst us. If not, it will simply be dismissed as just another self-serving Truth.
Note her emphasis on a both/and approach rather than an either/or one. Philosophical argument and moral witness are not competing approaches to apologetics; they are complementary. Read her whole post here.
February 7th, 2013 | 12:29 pm
Besides the several obvious problems that this approach to dealing with unjust appeals to so-called facts, it amounts to a reaction made in the flush of indignation that produces injustices of it’s own. It will be seen in hindsight to be mistaken and foolish and be exchanged with a higher order set of considerations that begin again with a return to the affirmation of truth. If not, it will be clear that the affirmation of relativism will be the affirmation of it for it’s own sake and not as a response to injustice.
February 7th, 2013 | 1:42 pm
Joseph Pieper in his book “On Hope” describes two sins against hope–one is the false presumption of hope, and the other is the slackening of hope through despair. It seems an apt description for how Truth has been viewed and abused here. Where some people have presumed to possess the Truth in an absolute way and have consequently fallen into sin, so relativists–by whatever motivation–have caved to the sin of acedia (sloth) and despair.
Thus, it is irrelevant whether those who have abused Truth committed violence–there is an equal violence done in rejecting it.
February 7th, 2013 | 2:57 pm
It seems to me that, in general, people rarely learn from past errors but usually substitute an opposite and equally bad error for a past one and then call it “progress.” So the injustices of capitalism are replaced by the leveling of communism; the arguments used to battle unjustices against African-Americans are now being used to ram through same-sex “marriage.” We seem to be capable only of battling injustice with more injustice and lies with more lies.
February 7th, 2013 | 3:14 pm
But the capital T Truth is that the relativists aren’t relativists about everything — the capital I injustice of what the marginalizers did to the marginalized being a distinctly non-relative truth in the way they seem to talk.
I suppose part of their response would be that post-modern ways of thinking/speaking is a tool in the hands of the oppressed to undermine the oppressing metanarrative. It’s less about capital T truth than a catalyst for action.
But post-modernism is just one way of treating truth instrumentally. There are others. As Lenin put it, “what is to be done?” Dzerzhinsky supplied a big portion of the answer. Surely the history of the last hundred years teaches relativism is as much a tool for the oppressor as the oppressed.
February 7th, 2013 | 4:29 pm
The Truth of the Gospel is one that doesn’t serve political ends or justify the standards of polite society. The radical compassion that Jesus revealed as our basest obligation to each other is revolutionary, not comforting. The Gospel is so profound because it rebukes all claims to authority except “whatsoever you to to the least of these, you do to me.”
February 7th, 2013 | 5:00 pm
It is like being a mosquito at a nudist colony after reading even some of what Ngu writes. There is so much to dive into in response that it is hard to know where to start. The problem is with the sin of pride and self-serving utility. It is NOT with notions of Truth. Moreover, one can make any claim that wish and state that “historically this has been the case”. That is historical and intellectual cherry-picking or “proof-texting. Relativism, like everything else, can be used in a self-serving manner against others. However, relativism can do nothing to stave off such evil – it is all relative. It is by its very nature self-serving. At least it is so functionally if not always intentionally. Ngu even gives such evidence of its contradictory and self-serving manner by saying that relativists may not even care about logically consistent worldviews. How convenient that is. Also, how intolerant, narrow-minded, and intellectual base it is also. It even makes fundamentalism look pretty solid. I mean evolutionary biology and a whole host of scientific disciplines only make sense if someone cared to think that the text of Genesis was not literal.. Taken altogether, this is the need for Truth. That Truth requires learning and the humility that comes with being educable. Ultimately, truth IS humility and humility IS Truth. This is revealed in the Cross. Both the humility of truth and its quite personal nature – Truth is a person. It is someone whom one can LOVE.
February 7th, 2013 | 5:13 pm
PS, I would add that Ngu’s final thought ended well – should be noted.
February 8th, 2013 | 3:36 am
What a curious new concept, these heart “issues.” Did Oprah coin it? At any rate, there’s no question that heart “issues” should be addressed. But to assume these “issues” are all people care about is to see others as subrational, and therefore as subhuman.
If my interlocutor truly doesn’t care about logical consistency, then no meaningful discussion can be had about anything, including heart “issues.” All meaningful thinking must assume the validity of the laws of thought; abandon these laws and you’re left with a mixture of insanity, emotivism, and confused nihilism. And even more heart “issues” to address, of course.
Which makes me think of Elizabeth Wurtzel, author of both “Radical Sanity” and the borderline insane diatribe “One-Night Stand of a Life.” It seems to me the only cure for her heart “issues” is plain old Truth.
February 8th, 2013 | 8:34 am
I’m not a philosopher, but this is my experience with truth. I try to live all areas of my life following the way of Jesus. His most important message was that we should love one another as we love ourselves. It’s a simple idea. The more we practice it, the easier it gets. When we practice it, it brings truth to the forefront and reality as we know it becomes easier to deal with.
February 8th, 2013 | 8:47 am
Also a quote from Viktor Frankl: “Love is the only way to grasp another human being in the innermost core of his personality.” – Dr. Viktor Frankl
February 10th, 2013 | 9:33 am
To me it seems there’s a difference between asserting that truth does not exist (or conflicting truths co-exist) and asserting truth may exist but cannot be known. The first seems properly called relativism while the second seems simply to be highly skeptical of the claims any one person may make to have ‘The Truth’.
The first is rejecting the idea of absolute Truth while the second seems to be putting absolute Truth on such a high pedestal that it’s beyond reach.
February 11th, 2013 | 11:33 am
I wonder if she referenced Bernard William’s essay “The Truth in Relativism.” It’s a bit technical, but quite useful. He has his typical finess of the issues. Schubert Ogden does a pretty good job of asking these questions in “Is There Only One True Religion or Are There Many?”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact