Is the good relative? Is it the justice? The Beauty?: An analysis on relativism

Already in the past I have dealt with the subject of relativity, a few weeks ago I made a publication that showed the absurdity of believing such a thing as truth is relative, which is why it is easily deduced that truth must necessarily be universal. Here I leave the link of that publication.

Today again I will venture to talk about relativism, but this time the idea in question will not be the truth, but the other ideas that are accused of relativity, those ideas that are more linked to the culture of the people, since although many can accept that the truth is not something relative, actually fewer and fewer are able to accept that something non-material is true, which in itself is a contradiction since the truth is not material, and if something no material is not true, the truth is not true, which, again, is an absurdity. But without going around the bush, let's leave the introductions and go once and for all to the development of the matter.

The argument of the relativists is quite simple; since different peoples, cultures, civilizations, as well as individuals, have understood the world in different ways, and because what some consider good, beautiful, just, etc., is not the same as what others consider, and that, on the contrary, the opinions of some and others have varied in each case, then it is postulated that there is no universal truth in any of these issues, since all these ideas are relative, and therefore, cannot be more than a subjective existence.

Although the premises are correct, and therefore there is a certain degree of reason in such a postulate, I am not one of those who share that opinion. Good and evil, as well as justice and injustice, beauty and ugliness, and all those ideas, are and can not be more than objective, the belief that such ideas are relative started, first, from a confusion in the use of the language that results in illusory appearances, and second, from an observation, although correct, unfocused.

But before we start to prove or disprove anything, we will have to resolve the semantic issues.

The first thing we must clarify is the meaning of the word "relative", because contrary to what many think, relative is not synonymous with subjective, in fact, relativity is not contrary, again as many think, to objectivity, and can go, as in fact they do, hand in hand.

But defining the three concepts in a summarized way, we can say that:

• Relativity is that which is proper to the relation, that is, something is relative when it depends on being related to something else.

• Subjectivity is that which is proper to the subject, that is, to the observer.

• Objectivity is that which is proper to the object, it should be noted that the object is not always material, an idea can also be an object, such as "truth", "good", etc., and it is precisely these latter of the which we will speak today.

When we talk about relativity we refer to something that depends on the relation of several things, and therefore, varies depending on that relation, a good example of relativity to exemplify what we talk about would be the following; If I will be compared to the footballer Lionel Messi, who is 1.70 meters tall, I would be quite tall, but if I compare myself to the former basketball player Yao Ming, who is 2.29 meters tall, I would be quite low. In this way, it is said that height is relative.

This same argument is extrapolated by the relativists in all other questions. Just as I am considered tall if compared to Messi and low compared to Yao Ming, it is said that something is good in some places while in others, quite the opposite, it is said that while in some places something can be considered beautiful, in other places that same thing is considered ugly, and so on.

But what conclusion can we draw from here? Is the height really relative?

No, the height is not relative, my body did not grow or became smaller by that comparison, my body always remained the same size, the height is objective.

How is it possible then for me to be higher or lower when comparing myself with different people?

People are higher or lower in comparison because they are being compared with other things that have height, but they are not being compared with the height itself. If you want to know in an objective way how tall you are, without illusory results of relativity, you don't go to the street to find people with whom to measure yourself, much less seek things, because then the measures will vary and the results will be relative; "I measure a refrigerator", "I measure a Peter and a half", etc., when you want to know how tall you are, you look for a tape measure and you measure yourself.

With respect to other questions of which relativity is alleged, as with good, justice, and the rest, usually we are not talking about relativity, but that, as is common, it is confusing relativity with subjectivity, which leads many to say things like "what you think is good, is not what I think is good, and what others think is good, therefore, good is relative", however, relativity has nothing to do with that sentence, it would be in any case that the good is subjective, that is, it varies depending on the subject, and not on the relation.

But that argument, which is widely used by relativists, has a slight error; the truth, which is objective, is being confused with opinion, which is subjective. It really does not matter what people say or believe, it matters what it is. A man can believe that he is a dog, he can act as a dog and bark like a dog, everyone can tell him that he is a dog, but he will never be a dog, he will always be a man.

In the same way, it does not matter what they say here and there about good, no matter what one or the other believes is good, only good in itself matters.

Confusing opinion with the truth is a very common mistake, as well as very catastrophic, if we want to be sure of something we must resort to logic and reason, not to opinion, regardless of whether the latter is shared by the experts or the majority. 2+2 will always be 4, it does not matter if the majority says it is 5, or if the experts say it is 3.

How can we know then if there is good? How can we also know these same questions about all other ideas?

Simple, although not so simple, let's do some mental exercises; Can you see the numbers ?, and I mean the numbers itself, not their graphical representation (1, 2, 3...) or anything like that, I mean the numbers itself, the idea of numbers. Can you see the one? Touch it? Smell it? Can you hear it? Can you taste the one?

Neither you nor anyone can do any of these things, however, we can know that numbers exist, and exist in all things; we can go to the living room of our house and count the furniture, count the chairs, count all other things. You will see that each chair in your house is a chair, but it can also be "one" if it is necessary, and that all material objects are countable, they can be counted.

In the same way, can you see the height? You will see again that no one can touch the height, and I speak of the height itself, no one can smell the height, see it, etc., but everything physically existing has height. The same goes for depth, width, beauty, justice, good, etc.

So all these ideas are present in every existing thing, in everything we see, in everything we smell, in everything we touch, what we hear, etc., how can we say then that these things don't exist, or that they are relative or subjective, if they are present everywhere and in all things?

Although these things don't occupy any space, they are manifested in all space, and while none of these things can physically be in itself, they manifest in all physical things.

The chair is not "one" and is not "height", although the chair has height and has oneness/unity, the chair is not "width" but if it is "wide", the chair is not "redness" but is "red", and so with everything else.

In this way we can know that all these ideas exist, and although we cannot see them directly, that is, we cannot know them through sensations, we can see their reflection in all things, and we can know them through abstraction. And don't confuse the latter, all these ideas are not abstractions, but it is through the abstraction we can know about them.

After all; Can there be something beautiful without the beauty? Can there be something red without the redness? Can there be something tall/high without the height? You will see that for something to possess a quality, it is necessary that such a quality exists.

So, beauty is not an abstraction, but if we can abstract the beauty that has something and in this way know that beauty exists, without confusing "the beautiful" with "the beauty", which are two different things, since "the beautiful" is anything that has beauty, and "the beauty" is a quality that exists in an objective way and from which we can know its existence precisely because it is reflected in "the beautiful".

To conclude, let's review what we have constituted up to now; ideas such as beauty, height, justice and all others, are not relative, neither subjective, but they are objective, they exist and they are perceived through intellection, unlike the common objects that are perceived through the sensation .

I would not like to finish without clarifying two questions, that although I have already clarified them throughout this post, I feel that they can be ignored or perhaps I have not clarified them enough yet, therefore, I need to clarify them in such a way that the writing is not incomplete.

The relativists have two main premises namely, the first, that the conception of the good in modernity is different from those of the past, and the second, that the conception of the good varies and has varied by regions, and the same has happened with all the other ideas, and note that I don't refer now to subjective opinions shared by individuals, but to relative conceptions shared by collectives. Is not this sufficient proof that the good is relative and therefore there are no universal truths in such matters?

As we clarified before, the good is not and cannot be relative, but to make a strong response to that argument, I believe that with an example I will leave in evidence the absurdity of such an approach.

Let's do this mental exercise for a moment, taking into account only one data; On January 6, 2019 there will be a solar eclipse in Northeastern Asia.

If I told you that today there will be a solar eclipse in Northeastern Asia, I would be lying, but if I said exactly the same thing on January 6, 2019 then I would be telling the truth. Is then relative the truth for this? How is it possible that the same action is done, exactly the same, and in one occasion may be wrong and not in the other?

Now, if we placed ourselves on January 6, 2019, and I told you that over my head, considering that I live in Venezuela, there will be a solar eclipse, then I would lie, but if I did exactly the same action in Northeastern Asia I would be saying the truth. Again, I wonder; how is this possible, if I am doing the same action, how is it possible that once I am wrong and the other is not?

This is exactly what the relativists argue, if we followed their logic the truth was relative, but as we saw, it was not the truth that changed, the solar eclipse would be in all cases on January 6, 2019 in Northeastern Asia, the only thing that changed were the circumstances, and being different circumstances you should say different things and do different actions to be aligned with the truth, not because of this the truth changed or became relative.

The space-time is a very large variable to be ignored, in fact, we cannot say that two actions are the same, although apparently they look similar, if they are done in different places or times. This variation in circumstances creates the illusion of relativity in things, a relativity that does not exist, since the actions are totally different if they are done in a different space-time.

Now, once and for all, we can say that we have resolved the questions regarding this issue, and we can say without fear of making a mistake that none of these ideas is relative or subjective, and that on the contrary they are all objective, however, if you still have some doubt or if you are of a different opinion or contrary to mine, don't hesitate to comment and let me know.

---

Image Source: 1, 2, 3