Higher order perspectives are still relative good? Can you escape Absolute Relativism

[Arthogaan]

@Leo Gura suggests that even if postmodernism is largely true, there can still be a hierarchy of perspectives: some perspectives are more inclusive, more coherent, more robust, and better at understanding others. From this view, certain perspectives are “better” because they help humanity flourish or function more effectively.

My question is: if we accept that all value judgments are ultimately relative, doesn’t claiming that some perspectives are “better” already assume hidden values—like wanting humanity/human consciousness to survive or flourish? If we strip away those assumptions, isn’t the notion of a hierarchy of perspectives ultimately just a game of aesthetics or preference? How can we justify saying one perspective is truly better, rather than just different?

In Absolute Truth it does not matter and @Leo Gura is just playing a game inside his Absolute Dream of helping humanity align to higher order perspective - but there is ultimately nothing Good about it. It is not more perfect than Trump spreading his egotistical patterns. Even though we can agree Leo's perspective is of better quality, understanding, scope, consciousness etc. - still - we cannot say it is Better. Because it is Love/Dream/Nothingness/Void anyway. Or maybe Leo will lead humanity to flourish but because of that humanity will in the future kill some alien species that is actually more inteligent/loving than humanity - so wouldn't that make /Teaching Humanity higher order perspectives/ actually a bad thing to happen in the relative dream looking retrospectively? Can we really escape the Absolute Relativism or in the end it is true but we can just choose more beautiful aesthetics?

[Arthogaan]

Bump 

[Nivsch]

The higher the perspective, the less it is projected and the more responsibility it takes to address the root of the problem, what in high chance will prevent the killing of the alien you mention, and also will be able to criticise the egotism of Trump in the least triggering way (due to the very minimal projection) possible what will convince people more effectively to think about it.

Edited yesterday at 09:46 PM by Nivsch

[Leo Gura]

On 9/26/2025 at 5:47 AM, Arthogaan said:

My question is: if we accept that all value judgments are ultimately relative, doesn’t claiming that some perspectives are “better” already assume hidden values—like wanting humanity/human consciousness to survive or flourish?

Yes, of course. I already said that.

Quote

If we strip away those assumptions, isn’t the notion of a hierarchy of perspectives ultimately just a game of aesthetics or preference? How can we justify saying one perspective is truly better, rather than just different?

It's a game of SURVIVAL!

You are missing the centrality of SURVIVAL.

EVERYTHING humans do is unconscious survival. including post-modernism and all academic philosophy.

If you don't care about survival then there is no hierarchy of values or perspectives. You can jump off a cliff and there is no problem and no concerns. And if a fascist rapes your children then you can just shrug your shoulders and continue about your day without a care in the world.

But don't kid yourself. You're not beyond survival. So our discussion always assumes your care about survival, since if you didn't there would nothing left to discuss.