Pluralism, Not Relativism

[DocWatts]

I thought I might share a write up on perspective-taking for my philosophy book, which is part of a chapter about how All Perspectives Are Partial. In this chapter, I explore the limitations of both Relativism and Absolutism, while offering Pluralism as a more productive alternative for navigating ambiguity without getting lost in it.

(If you found this write-up useful / interesting, you might also like this earlier article on Perspectives And Purposes)
https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/108568-perspectives-and-purposes/

_____________________________

Perspectives - Localized, Limited, And Incomplete

This article is part of an ongoing series about how all perspectives are partial.

'Partial' means localized, limited, and incomplete - inevitable consequences of having a perspective at all, rather than a God's-eye view. The pivotal insight we'll be exploring is that our assessments are never neutral or purpose-free. Instead, they have everything to do with where we stand in relation to the world.

Relativism - Freedom Without Direction

When our cherished certainties hit a dead-end, how do we find our way to a more promising trail? Road-weary from trusting in failed certainties, we might be tempted to forsake paths altogether and veer off into the meandering forest of relativism.

The thicket beckons to us because buried within lies a genuine insight. The revelation? Our viewpoints aren’t straightforward snapshots of Reality - they’re interpretive lenses that reveal and distort. Much like the fovea is to the human eye, our interpretive lenses have a focal point which brings certain selective elements into sharp clarity - and a periphery where everything else recedes into a blurry, indistinct background. The crucial insight? These focal points aren’t universal or arbitrary - they’re intimately tied to a horizon of significance that we negotiate with our culture. Negotiate, because our individual viewpoint is always situated within a social landscape that serves as our starting point for sensemaking. We can adapt, refine, and push back against this inherited framework - but we can never step outside of it entirely.

To state it more simply: what we see depends on what we’ve been taught to look for - and what’s important to us. To see this in action, consider two archetypal lenses with very different focal points - the view of a scientist, and the gaze of a mystic. One directs their attention towards aspects of Reality that can be modeled through precise, mechanistic investigation. The other turns their perception to the ineffable horizons of our lived experience. What’s in sharp focus for one viewpoint is an indistinct blur for the other, yet both are attending to different aspects of the same shared Reality.

Crucially, neither of these contrasting lenses is worn by a detached observer - their adoption is an outgrowth of our concernful involvement in the world. And each is drawing from a shared pool of human experience, namely an appreciation for wonder and the joy of discovery. In the end, what separates these viewpoints is not the Reality they inhabit, but which aspects of it direct their gaze.

Relativism too emerges from our entanglement with the world. The emotional impetus? To not be fooled by false certainties - and to prevent ourselves from being weighed down by the baggage that accompanies them. Following relativism into the brambles, aspirations towards a ‘view from nowhere’ are unmasked as a naive pipe dream. Certainty? A bedtime story for children, not the currency of serious thinkers.

With an unapologetic smirk, relativism is the irreverent iconoclast to our holier-than-thou pretensions. Emerging from the forest of equivocation, it takes a flattening steamroller to our patronizing dismissal of rival perspectives. In the midst of a shouting match between ‘obviously correct’ viewpoints, relativism announces that the referee is a fraud, and the rulebook is full of holes. And instead of offering up a replacement, it insists that the rules are made up and the points don’t matter.

If throwing out the epistemic scorecards sounds like a cop-out, consider the host of everyday situations where we have no trouble applying it. When we see two paintings of a sunset hanging next to one another in a gallery, we don’t hem and haw over which one is the ‘correct’ interpretation. And the fun of arguing that chocolate is objectively superior to vanilla stems from the obvious absurdity of the question.

What relativism forces us to confront is that this interpretive dimension reaches beyond the trivial into domains with tangible stakes. Scientific paradigms, ethical frameworks, political ideologies - all are to some degree conditioned preferences without a universal measuring stick to determine which is ultimately ‘correct’. When confronted with the smug assertion that ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’, relativism responds with cool confidence that ‘there’s no such thing as an uninterpreted fact.’

Make no mistake: the truths of relativism are partial. Masterful at tearing down self-supposed ‘certainties’ long past their shelf life. And conspicuously absent when the time comes to build something better in its place. When we’ve been suffocating under stifling absolutism, relativism’s insights can be a revelatory breath of fresh air. But just as we wouldn’t want to spend the rest of our days in the oxygen tent that saved our life, relativism serves us better as a waystation than a final destination.

Liberating as it feels on first arrival, we soon discover that the trackless forest isn’t a long-term home. While “it depends” can be a valid response in some situations, it’s of little guidance when the world pushes us to pick a lane. The equivocating compass of relativism proves itself a poor tool for distinguishing promising directions from those that lead nowhere - and those that would send us tumbling off a cliff.

Beyond mere impracticality for real-world decision making, there’s a sunless valley within Relativism’s domain that attracts predators. While a ‘live and let live’ policy to perspectives may sound benign, in practice it can be a Trojan horse for dangerous bullshit. One where opportunists emerge from the shadows to offer us ‘alternative perspectives’ on established facts about everything from vaccines to the Holocaust. Its liberating potential isn’t just for the genuinely marginalized - it’s also a boon for charlatans and extremists. Meander long enough through the trackless forest and sooner or later you’ll catch sight of a stray Nazi.

The Path Of Pluralism - Calibrating Perspectives With Purposes

So where does this leave us? Fortunately, a Sisyphean trudge over the same dead-end path - or wandering aimlessly through the woods, for that matter - are not our only options. If we adjust our focus from the obvious to the overlooked, we may notice a road less traveled - the path of Pluralism. Less traveled because it demands more from us - more humility than the rigid certainty of absolutism, and more discernment than the equivocation of relativism. Offering neither the false comfort of the former nor the illusory freedom of the latter, the Path of Pluralism provides its practical dividends for those who are willing to put in the work. This is because pluralism is a practice - not something you believe in, but something you do.

Why seek out this more demanding trail? Because the utility it provides is worth the trouble. In a world where control is an illusion and detachment from outcomes is a tall-order for most, pluralism gives us needed tools for navigating ambiguity without getting lost in it. The essence of its pragmatic wisdom? Pick a lane - but know where the offramps are. Stated simply, there are usually multiple valid vantage points for approaching a given situation. Yet this openness comes paired with the astute recognition that there are often very good reasons to reject some approaches out-of-hand.

In a messy Reality where control is an illusion and complete information is a pipe dream, it’s attunement rather than perfection that’s sublime. Attunement means calibrating our perspectives with our purposes. The key lies not in finding the perfect setting, but in adaptive adjustment. Like balancing on a bicycle, it’s a continual process of minute course corrections in response to ever-shifting conditions.

Our initial vantage point doesn’t have to be perfect - it just needs to be a reasonable first-approximation that’s receptive to the changing terrain it traverses. ‘Receptive’ means structured to evolve methodically rather than haphazardly in response to situational feedback, with clear criteria for where it applies and where it doesn’t. And crucially, this entails being capable of abandoning our approach if it’s no longer serving us.

Or, to put it plainly: while there are multiple ways to crack an egg, that doesn't mean that the edge of a bowl and a sledgehammer are equally effective methods for making an omelet. Pluralism acknowledges a diversity of viewpoints while recognizing that some of these serve our purposes, while others leave us with a mess.

Edited May 9 by DocWatts

[Yimpa]

18 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

Or, to put it plainly: while there are multiple ways to crack an egg, that doesn't mean that the edge of a bowl and a sledgehammer are equally effective methods to make an omelet. Pluralism acknowledges a diversity of viewpoints while recognizing that some of these serve our purposes, while others leave us with a mess

                                                                                                                                                             age, Thanks!

 

Edited May 8 by Yimpa

[zurew]

6 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Or, to put it plainly: while there are multiple ways to crack an egg, that doesn't mean that the edge of a bowl and a sledgehammer are equally effective methods for making an omelet. Pluralism acknowledges a diversity of viewpoints while recognizing that some of these serve our purposes, while others leave us with a mess.

Yes, you want a goal and then a norm or a set of norms attached to it (that can help you with measuring your progression or digression) and then with respect to your selected norm certain actions and perspectives will score lower than others.

I am not sure though that relativists are commited to the idea that given a goal oriented norm all ideas/actions/perspectives will score the exact same. I thought they rejected the idea that there is some kind of metaphysically true norm that we should abide by independent of our goals.

Edited Friday at 06:22 AM by zurew

[DocWatts]

6 hours ago, zurew said:

Yes, you want a goal and then a norm or a set of norms attached to it (that can help you with measuring your progression or digression) and then with respect to your selected norm certain actions and perspectives will score lower than others.

I am not sure though that relativists are commited to the idea that given a goal oriented norm all ideas/actions/perspectives will score the exact same. I thought they rejected the idea that there is some kind of metaphysically true norm that we should abide by independent of our goals.

The problems with Relativism, as I see it, are twofold.

1) It lacks a firm, emotionally compelling reason for why we should reject harmful/dysfunctional viewpoints.

Relativism tells us that we should try to understand viewpoints and practices from within their own historical and cultural context - and that any judgement we pass necessarily reflects our own cultural conditioning and individual biases. This is true  - but if this insight isn't paired with some other non-relativistic underlying principles, the best that relativism can do is tell us that accepting or rejecting a particular viewpoint comes down to the preferences that we've been conditioned into. 

When the Chinese government calls human rights 'Western rights', does our knee-jerk rejection of this just come down to cultural chauvinism? Or is it a reflection of cross-cultural principles that are worth striving for?

Slavery  'made sense' from the POV's of the subcultures that enacted these practices - is there a more substantive reason for rejecting slavery, other than that it rubs us the wrong way because of the culture we grew up in?

2) It's self undermining.

Basically, if relativism itself is just one viewpoint among many, why should we adopt it over the totalizing viewpoints it critiques? While this approach might look like humility, in actuality no one adheres to an epistemology without an implicit belief that it’s more valid than what it’s critiquing (otherwise, why embrace Relativism over some other viewpoint)? In short: relativism can't advocate for itself within its own framework.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Granted, there are 'strong' and 'weak' versions of Relativism, and these two critiques are much more salient for its 'strong' incarnations. You're right though - not all relativists cling to such extreme forms of equivocation. It can be applied with varying degrees of nuance.

The larger point isn't that Relativism is wrong, per se - it's that it's partial. These critiques only jump to the forefront when Relativism is treated as complete viewpoint, rather than one heuristic among many that we should keep in mind when evaluating perspectives.

 

Edited Friday at 12:40 PM by DocWatts

[aurum]

On 5/9/2025 at 4:34 AM, DocWatts said:

The problems with Relativism, as I see it, are twofold.

Beyond what you mentioned, the problem is really that Absolute Truth exists.

No strict relativist can accept the existence of Absolute Truth. 

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

Beyond what you mentioned, the problem is really that Absolute Truth exists.

No strict relativist can accept the existence of Absolute Truth. 

Partial agreement. It might be worth clarifying my stance here, since it differs in emphasis from Leo's. I'm less interested in what's ultimately 'real', and more interested in a descriptive account of how we arrive at our conceptual distinctions.

My contention is that knowledge need not have an absolute ground - regardless of whether that ground is an inferred 'mind independent Reality' (materialism) or whether it's purely mental (idealism / mysticism).  

Whether our shared Reality is physical or mental isn't what's important here - what's important is that mind and world blend into one another in a circular way. Our lived perspective is the canvas upon which we experience a shared Reality, yet this canvas itself is shaped by the shared Reality it presents. Trying to find an absolute ground in either of these two poles is like asking if a coin is 'really' heads or tails.

The takeaway isn't some New-Age pseudo-profundity that 'you are the whole universe'. It's that the relationship between 'mind and world' is highly porous - less like a brick wall, and more like a permeable membrane where the boundaries are fluid and constant exchange is the norm.

Does all this mean that the Absolute doesn't exit? Not at all - just that it can't be cleanly separated from our lived perspective within Reality. Observer dependent, but not 'made up' or 'imaginary'. 

Edited Sunday at 08:42 PM by DocWatts

[aurum]

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Whether our shared Reality is physical or mental isn't what's important here - what's important is that mind and world blend into one another in a circular way. Our lived perspective is the canvas upon which we experience a shared Reality, yet this canvas itself is shaped by the shared Reality it presents. Trying to find an absolute ground in either of these two poles is like asking if a coin is 'really' heads or tails.

You can describe reality in that way, but it's actually a less profound description than it could be.

The two poles feedback into each because reality is Absolute.

The Absolute is the whole circle.

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

My contention is that knowledge need not have an absolute ground - regardless of whether that ground is an inferred 'mind independent Reality' (materialism) or whether it's purely mental (idealism / mysticism).  

This is false.

Absolute ground is needed for any partial, relative knowledge to exist.

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Does all this mean that the Absolute doesn't exit? Not at all - just that it can't be cleanly separated from our lived perspective within Reality. Observer dependent, but not 'made up' or 'imaginary'. 

You are describing the Absolute but just not saying it.

Nothing can be cleanly separated because Oneness.

I'm hoping you take this as constructive criticism, because I do think you're doing good work. I just think there's another level available if you want to go there.

 

[DocWatts]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

I'm hoping you take this as constructive criticism, because I do think you're doing good work. I just think there's another level available if you want to go there.

Appreciate it! Your constructive criticism is very welcome.

Mind and world are two aspects of a unified phenomena we call Reality, but that doesn't mean we have access to 'everything, everywhere, across all time'  - our limitations matter. Good epistemology (in my view) uses our situated position within Reality as a starting point for making useful discernments from unavoidably incomplete information. 

I'm of course open to the possibility that there a levels beyond the epistemic territory I'm exploring - but if that's indeed the case, no sense moving on until the approach I'm articulating has been more fully mined for its partial insights.

[aurum]

10 minutes ago, DocWatts said:

I'm of course open to the possibility that there a levels beyond the epistemic territory I'm exploring - but if that's indeed the case, no sense moving on until the approach I'm articulating has been more fully mined for its partial insights.

Fair enough

[zurew]

On 2025. 05. 11. at 11:58 PM, aurum said:

Absolute ground is needed for any partial, relative knowledge to exist.

What does 'absolute ground' mean in an epistemic and non-ontological context?

Is that claim something about whats a necessary precondition for any knowledge to be possible?

Depending on what you mean by that 'absolute ground' in an epistemic context, I will probably have issues with that.

[aurum]

4 hours ago, zurew said:

What does 'absolute ground' mean in an epistemic and non-ontological context?

An absolute ground epistemically would be the most fundamental justification for all knowledge.

But while you can make a distinction between an absolute ground epistemically and ontologically, in this case, I am collapsing that distinction.

Claim: If an absolute ground exists epistemically, then it must exist absolutely. Therefore, it is also ontologically absolute.

Edited Tuesday at 09:34 PM by aurum

[Schizophonia]

There is much more pluralism in France than in the United States, and the level of politics is much higher.

Without chauvinism.

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

Claim: If an absolute ground exists epistemically, then it must exist absolutely. Therefore, it is also ontologically absolute.

Counter Claim: Ontology is always situated, because being (whether we're talking about the 'being' of entities or capital B 'Being') isn't metaphysical.

It's instead a form of understanding for a particular someone, which we reify as a metaphysical substance or field due to a category error.

In short, it's the most basic and primordial way that people, places, and things are first disclosed to us as people, places, and things.

 

Edited Tuesday at 09:54 PM by DocWatts

[aurum]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Counter Claim: Ontology is always situated, because being (whether we're talking about the 'being' of entities or capital B 'Being') isn't metaphysical.

It's instead a form of understanding for a particular someone, which we reify as a metaphysical substance or field due to a category error.

In short, it's the most basic and primordial way that people, places, and things are first disclosed to us as people, places, and things.

The issue is that this definition of being is far too limited.

Being includes, but is not limited by, anything humans do. It is not merely the act of understanding what people, places, or things are.

Existence as a whole has being, or more precisely, is being. At this level, being is not contextual. It is a metaphysical absolute.

Which means: its ontology is absolute, not merely situated.

In short, there is no category error. The only error is mistaking reality for something purely contextual or situated.

Reality is the infinite absolute of contexts.

Edited 23 hours ago by aurum

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, aurum said:

The issue is that this definition of being is far too limited.

Being includes, but is not limited by, anything humans do. It is not merely the act of understanding what people, places, or things are.

Your use of 'Being' refers to the Absolute - the metaphysical ground of all that is (Being-As-Absolute)

What I'm attempting to do is shift the question from what Reality is to how we experience Reality (Being-As-Understanding).

Reality itself may be an undifferentiated whole, but it's always accessed from a situated position - a vantage-point rather than an everything-point.

Being-As-Absolute might be what-is, but Being-As-Understanding is how what-is becomes intelligible. The former contains the latter, but the latter is more salient to our human condition within the Absolute.

When we say that something is a type of thing, we’re already in the realm of Being-as-Understanding. Reality itself doesn’t consist of ‘things’ as such — ‘things’ emerge from the act of differentiation, of drawing distinctions within the undifferentiated.

Edited 23 hours ago by DocWatts

[aurum]

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Your use of 'Being' refers to the Absolute - the metaphysical ground of all that is (Being-As-Absolute)

What I'm attempting to do is shift the question from what Reality is to how we experience Reality (Being-As-Understanding).

Reality itself may be an undifferentiated whole, but it's always accessed from a situated position - a vantage-point rather than an everything-point.

Being-As-Absolute might be what-is, but Being-As-Understanding is how what-is becomes intelligible. The former contains the latter, but the latter is more salient to our human condition within the Absolute.

When we say that something is a type of thing, we’re already in the realm of Being-as-Understanding. Reality itself doesn’t consist of ‘things’ as such — ‘things’ emerge from the act of differentiation, of drawing distinctions within the undifferentiated.

My point is that bracketing the question of The Absolute and metaphysics risks shaping how you understand experience in ways that may go unnoticed.

Understanding of the two, what reality is and how we experience reality, cannot be cleanly separated.

Again, this is just my critique. If you feel your approach is more valuable for what you're exploring, then by all means pursue it.

Edited 20 hours ago by aurum

[zurew]

11 hours ago, aurum said:

An absolute ground epistemically would be the most fundamental justification for all knowledge.

That sounds like an absolute ground would just mean a necessary precondition for all knowledge.

But regardless, its seems very straightforward to me, that 2 people don't need to have the exact same metaphyiscs in order to solve disagreements about relative stuff. You can have an idealist and a physicalist solving their disagreements about how many oranges are on the table, without first needing to solve their metaphysical differences.

11 hours ago, aurum said:

But while you can make a distinction between an absolute ground epistemically and ontologically, in this case, I am collapsing that distinction.

If being can be used as the most fundamental justification, then how do you argue against someone who propose a different metaphysics than you , redefine that metaphysics as 'ultimately true' and use the same move as what you did by collapsing the distinction between epistemology and ontology and claim that his metaphysics is a necessary precondition for all knowledge?

----------------------

Here is person A's proposed metaphysics : Hi person A, why do you think you are justified in thinking that your metaphysics is true? 'Well, because its a necessary precondition for all knowledge ' And what do you take that necessary precondition to be ? 'Well, my metaphysics'.

Why couldn't anyone make the exact same move with their version of metaphysics?

11 hours ago, aurum said:

Claim: If an absolute ground exists epistemically, then it must exist absolutely. Therefore, it is also ontologically absolute.

That only make sense if you collapse the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Otherwise the notion of an epistemic ground existing seems like an incoherent thing to say. What would it even mean for an epistemic method/tool to exist?

Edited 17 hours ago by zurew

[integral]

10 hours ago, zurew said:

But regardless, its seems very straightforward to me, that 2 people don't need to have the exact same metaphyiscs in order to solve disagreements about relative stuff. You can have an idealist and a physicalist solving their disagreements about how many oranges are on the table, without first needing to solve their metaphysical differences.

The logic of an orange arises when the orange is formed. Form and logic are not separated. All form has a logic to it.

A triangle has three sides. It doesn’t matter what metaphysics you have or you’re epistemology. is what it is.

It’s self evident.

In the same way when you look in the mirror, it is self evident that you’re looking at your own reflection.

Now it doesn’t mean that you know what is the logical truth. It only means that there is logic arising with everything.

We could be completely wrong about the logic of a triangle, but there’s logic, the triangle cannot exist without the logic.

That also includes everything illogical. We are not talking about a closed system of axiom.

Edited 8 hours ago by integral

[zurew]

1 hour ago, integral said:

The logic of an orange arises when the orange is formed. Form and logic are not separated. All form has a logic to it.

A triangle has three sides. It doesn’t matter what metaphysics you have or you’re epistemology. is what it is.

It’s self evident.

In the same way when you look in the mirror, it is self evident that you’re looking at your own reflection.

Now it doesn’t mean that you know what is the logical truth. It only means that there is logic arising with everything.

We could be completely wrong about the logic of a triangle, but there’s logic, the triangle cannot exist without the logic.

That also includes everything illogical. We are not talking about a closed system of axiom.

I would just say that there are certain epistemic norms (that we use in the hypothetical to investigate the number of oranges) that are compatible with multiple different kind of metaphysics (physicalism, idealism)

Therefore we can solve the disagreement about the oranges by appealing to an epistemic norm that we are both okay with, without needing to first resolve our disagreement about metaphyiscs (we don't need to have the same foundation in that sense). That was my point.

 

You seem to be saying more than that, but I don't really track that.

Edited 7 hours ago by zurew

[aurum]

11 hours ago, zurew said:

But regardless, its seems very straightforward to me, that 2 people don't need to have the exact same metaphyiscs in order to solve disagreements about relative stuff. You can have an idealist and a physicalist solving their disagreements about how many oranges are on the table, without first needing to solve their metaphysical differences.

That's correct and an important distinction. This is essentially the approach of many scientists: ignore metaphysics because it's not necessary to come to pragmatic, relativistic conclusions. And that does work, to a degree.

Here's the kicker though: an absolute ground still exists even if you don't recognize it. And it still is the reason any finite knowledge is possible, whether it's consciously acknowledged or not.

11 hours ago, zurew said:

If being can be used as the most fundamental justification, then how do you argue against someone who propose a different metaphysics than you , redefine that metaphysics as 'ultimately true' and use the same move as what you did by collapsing the distinction between epistemology and ontology and claim that his metaphysics is a necessary precondition for all knowledge?

----------------------

Here is person A's proposed metaphysics : Hi person A, why do you think you are justified in thinking that your metaphysics is true? 'Well, because its a necessary precondition for all knowledge ' And what do you take that necessary precondition to be ? 'Well, my metaphysics'.

Why couldn't anyone make the exact same move with their version of metaphysics?

They could make that exact same move. But if their metaphysics relies on assumptions, partiality or finitude, it will be internal incoherent and should be discarded.

For instance, I could design a metaphysics where unicorns are God. But this is contradictory because unicorns are finite and therefore cannot be God.

What this all leads to is that there can only be one correct metaphysics, which is the Absolute. And the Absolute is revealed with awakening, not merely deduced with logic.

Yes, it's circular reasoning. And that's because reality is Absolute and can only be understood through Being, which is a tautology.

11 hours ago, zurew said:

That only make sense if you collapse the difference between epistemology and ontology.

Otherwise the notion of an epistemic ground existing seems like an incoherent thing to say. What would it even mean for an epistemic method/tool to exist?

Yes, I am collapsing the difference.

How do you know (epistemology) what reality is? Through direct experience, or Being (ontology). To know is to be, and to be is to know.