A definition of relativism is the denial of absolute truths, so a relativist thinks that the absolute truth, that is, those safe, do not exist. When it comes to speaking truth to philosophical truths, not one doubts that the grass is green, is called into doubt, for example, that Marxism is good or bad, or that Hinduism is the true religion or not. This definition of relativism has a flaw, because the denial of Veer is in itself an absolute autocracy. In fact, define what a denial of another What could be wrong. If fact, relativism denies absolute truth could well say that absolutism is the denial of truth for, in practice, it acknowledges that the truth may not be recognized as true as could exist others. Absolutism claims instead that there's only one truth, one way to do, to live, you do not know anything else. You could then define relativism as the coexistence of multiple truths. Of course, the truth coexisting might clash with each other, and so was born the plurality of ideas, respect others without overpowering. And then, in history, with the collapse of political absolutism and religious, have a considerable scientific and technological progress: it is a small chance that the Netherlands has managed to win its war of independence (1568-1648) against the English superpower era, not a coincidence that England has built an empire capable of grabbing the world in the nineteenth century, it is not by chance that in the tolerant Venice has developed the Industrial Revolution a century before the rest of Italy. In practice, the relativist philosophy, we recognize the thoughts of others without it being a harm to others:
"live as you and in your belief, just that it does not disturb others and not do them any harm."
Even the aphorism "I do not agree with you but I will fight to the death because you can talk "is wrong: for example, to leave to express an extremist movement, that if for one reason or another can not acquire the power to leave the space that was granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment