|
"All things are relative," is one of those modern, 20th century aphorisms people hear a lot; but, the ones advocating it (and even
those that hear it) apparently don't
critically analyze it very much. This is quite peculiar because this sweeping generalization can not possibly be true! Yet, we continue to hear it over and over from seemingly sane people. In fact, its use even bestows a certain seductive aura
of worldly sophistication upon the
user rather than what it should convey - an utterly cynical worldview!
It
has long been known, of course, that incessant use of a fallacy, as though it were true, eventually makes it sound true
and many people stop questioning it
and even start using it themselves. When this point is reached, inanity has corrupted rationality once again in the lexicon and becomes more entrenched with longevity. So, to strike a blow for reason
and sanity, let us apply a little simple
logic to this ubiquitous proposition.
First,
the modifier 'all' makes this an absolute statement - no exceptions allowed - proclaiming that anything whatever that can be considered a 'thing' is relative. Well, since the aphorism in question is a 'thing,' in order to be universally true, its meaning
must also apply to itself. So, we are
now confronted with an absolute 'thing' being relative at the same time! Since this absurd outcome is an obvious contradiction, the aphorism can be said to be internally inconsistent if we wish to be
kind; or simply self contradicting
and therefore dead wrong if we choose to be blunt.
Now
the diehard relativist may well object at this point with, "no, now
wait a minute, we're not falling for that old trick; what we mean is that all things except this statement are relative!" Well, that certainly does change the situation. At least this revised aphorism can not be said to be self contradicting; however, it still presents the
relativist with a daunting task: Namely,
arguing that all things, other than the concept
of relativism, are relative. But, what could there possibly be about the notion of
relativism that could give it such
an exalted place in the universe? Why would
it be the one and only 'thing' that is absolute? But is it really the only absolute?
As if the relativists did not have enough on their collective plate at this point, they will also have to admit that if any other 'thing,'
like another saying, for example, can
be shown to always be absolute, this new aphorism
will still fail - not by self contradiction but just by simply not being true in all cases. So, let us put the softer relativism to just such a test by introducing the following statement about the term
'speed' (as in the pace or rate an
object is traveling): "Speed is
a relative concept."
Now
again we have an absolute statement. In other words, because the subject, 'speed,' is not qualified, it refers, by default, to all speeds; and it doesn't contradict itself. But is it always true? It can hardly be doubted that this statement is universally true because in order
for the very notion of speed to make
sense, the pace it refers to must necessarily be compared to something else, usually the 'stationary' ground or pavement or railway embankment or whatever one chooses as a reference frame. This is the case whether the reference is stated or not. For
example, when we refer to an automobile
traveling 60 miles per hour (MPH), the implication is clear that we mean 60 MPH, with respect to the
roadway it is moving on.
This well known classical relativity gets a little trickier
when we consider airplanes but holds
just the same: When we say a jumbo jet is cruising
at 500 MPH, we have to specify whether we are talking about ground-speed or air-speed which can be quite different. Ground-speed,
of course, is in reference to the ground
below; air-speed; on the other hand, is
in reference to the air the plane is flying through which itself can be moving at substantial speeds with respect to the ground.
So, now that we have shown another 'thing'
to be an absolute, the relativist must
add an additional modifier to the 'all
things are relative, except
. . .' hypothesis to keep it out
of the paradoxical trash bin. Of course,
the more exceptions that are added to a generalized concept, the less universal and weaker it becomes. It doesn't take many before the whole rickety concept falls (or should fall) into oblivion. We have
long since arrived at that point with
this insidious and extremely dangerous distortion; but, it just refuses to die. We really need to understand why - a pointed stake through the heart would not be a bad idea on this one!
It is interesting to consider
the opposing proposition that the fundamentalist
camps would much prefer, "All things are absolute." Even though this proposition is not self contradictory, it will still fail our analysis if a case can be found that is relative. Since we have already found one in the 'speed' case, this generalized statement can not be universally true either. So, what can we say? "Many things are relative?" or "Some
things are absolute?" Or how about,
"All things are relative to a degree (with degree
being assigned values that can possibly vary from 0 to 100%)? That would make the statement potentially true in all cases; we would just have to supply the percent values which could be difficult without
a lot of research in most cases. The
real barrier to wide spread use is that it doesn’t
roll trippingly off the tongue – so it is doubtful many would-be philosophers would use it.
Although Einstein is often connected to the gross generalization of relativity into relativism, he would have been the
last person to advance it. Unfortunately,
and against his wishes, an over-dramatized, distorted piece of his work now permeates the popular vernacular, even though he never used those words.
|
