Joseph Pearce has written a good essay on the key difference between the relativist and realist approach to truth (Nazissism: The Totalitarianism of the Self). In it, Mr. Pearce tracks the relativist's collapse into a realism about relativism.
If I may attempt humbly to summarize Mr. Pearce's argument, the relativist's collapse proceeds as follows:
"1. The only truth is that there is no truth. [Relativism about truth]
2. If truth is as such, then the only correct moral statement is that there are no correct moral statements. [Relativism about morality]
3. If morality is as such, then the only correct approach to legislation is that which prohibits legislating morality. [Modern-day legal philosophy, as best outlined in the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Casey v. Planned Parenthood]."
The contradictions of relativism are blatant; those who propound them will, eventually and inevitably, become violent. This is borne out by history, both ancient and recent, and, more importantly, by common sense. It does not take a scholar of American history to discern a key principle of modern American history: traditional collections of people into families, communities (nearly exclusively religious), towns, townships, debating societies, etc. have been increasingly under attack by an approach to public policy founded on the belief that the larger a government is, both in scope and in size, the more fit it will be to secure freedom and autonomy for its citizens.
The pornographic revolution (I will not strip sex of its dignity by referring to the modern world's collapse into immorality as a "sexual" revolution) which undergirds the spirit of the modern age has led us to the very denial of the existence of male and female forms altogether. The pornographic revolution did not arise from a vacuum; it arose from relativism.
For those who are disgusted by the latest escalation of the war against traditional sexual morality, it is critical that they understand the root of the belligerents' cause. However, while that is definitely an interesting question, far keener minds and far clearer writers than myself have written on the topic.
In this short essay, I want to discuss what many consider to be a third option to the question of relativism or realism. I wish to discuss this option because many see it as the option of lasting peace (if actually lived out). However, this option is not an option of lasting peace, but rather an option which inevitably collapses into relativism. In other words, on the questions of truth, morality, beauty, goodness, and legislation, there only really do exist two options: realtivism and realism. Relativism leads to tyranny. Realism leads to true freedom, for true freedom can only come from knowing, living, and glorifying the truth. Since, then, this third option will itself inevitably collapse into relativism, it is as dangerous as relativism. Indeed, it may be even more dangerous, for it lulls those who hold it into a false sense of complacency.
If I may attempt humbly to summarize Mr. Pearce's argument, the relativist's collapse proceeds as follows:
"1. The only truth is that there is no truth. [Relativism about truth]
2. If truth is as such, then the only correct moral statement is that there are no correct moral statements. [Relativism about morality]
3. If morality is as such, then the only correct approach to legislation is that which prohibits legislating morality. [Modern-day legal philosophy, as best outlined in the Supreme Court's majority opinion on Casey v. Planned Parenthood]."
The contradictions of relativism are blatant; those who propound them will, eventually and inevitably, become violent. This is borne out by history, both ancient and recent, and, more importantly, by common sense. It does not take a scholar of American history to discern a key principle of modern American history: traditional collections of people into families, communities (nearly exclusively religious), towns, townships, debating societies, etc. have been increasingly under attack by an approach to public policy founded on the belief that the larger a government is, both in scope and in size, the more fit it will be to secure freedom and autonomy for its citizens.
The pornographic revolution (I will not strip sex of its dignity by referring to the modern world's collapse into immorality as a "sexual" revolution) which undergirds the spirit of the modern age has led us to the very denial of the existence of male and female forms altogether. The pornographic revolution did not arise from a vacuum; it arose from relativism.
For those who are disgusted by the latest escalation of the war against traditional sexual morality, it is critical that they understand the root of the belligerents' cause. However, while that is definitely an interesting question, far keener minds and far clearer writers than myself have written on the topic.
In this short essay, I want to discuss what many consider to be a third option to the question of relativism or realism. I wish to discuss this option because many see it as the option of lasting peace (if actually lived out). However, this option is not an option of lasting peace, but rather an option which inevitably collapses into relativism. In other words, on the questions of truth, morality, beauty, goodness, and legislation, there only really do exist two options: realtivism and realism. Relativism leads to tyranny. Realism leads to true freedom, for true freedom can only come from knowing, living, and glorifying the truth. Since, then, this third option will itself inevitably collapse into relativism, it is as dangerous as relativism. Indeed, it may be even more dangerous, for it lulls those who hold it into a false sense of complacency.
No comments:
Post a Comment