The relativist cannot actually state any proposition that captures what she wants to say. She can never add enough "...relative to some perspective" qualifications in order to fully express her position.[1]
Relativism. Retrieved October 30, 2024. ↩︎
There is an argument that absolutism faces the an infinite regress problem too. However, there is an important difference between these two infinite regresses.
Consider the following infinite regress:
What makes X true is that Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth. What makes X1 true is the truth of X, and what makes X2 true is the truth of X1, which is made true by X. All of these statements are made true by the same fact. There is a particular base fact. Understanding the base fact does not require understanding all the true statements derived from it.
By contrast, in the case of relativism, the original claim is that "all truths are relative", but that base claim is not what the relativist wants to say. She needs it relativized to some perspective. Understanding what she wants to say does require understanding the infinite sequence of "relative to …" statements.
The problem for relativism is that this infinite chain blocks us from understanding the relativist’s position.[1]
Relativism. Retrieved October 30, 2024. ↩︎
A counterargument by David Bloor tries to defend relativism against the infinite regress problem by comparing it to the infinite regress of causality, which doesn't seem like a problem. However, a causal explanations can end wherever we want. Consider the following chain of causation:
When we explain E by citing E*, this raises the question of what caused E*, but we need not pursue it. (C), (C1), and (C2) together may be a better explanation of E than (C) alone. But the facts described in (C1) do not bear on the facts described in (C) -- that is, we could discover that (C1) is false, while still having good reason to believe (C).
Now consider the following chain of infinite regress of a relative truth:
If (A1) is false, (A) is in trouble. This is why we need to have the whole chain in the case of the relativist.
We may have a better explanation the more causes we cite. But we would not say that a claim becomes more true, the further along we go through the sequence of perspectives.[1]
Relativism. Retrieved October 30, 2024. ↩︎
One can argue that a relativist needs infinite number of qualifications to fully express her position. However, absolutism faces exactly the same problem. Consider the proposition:
(X) Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on Earth.
Then we have:
These infinite regresses are nothing special to relativism.[1]
Relativism. Retrieved October 30, 2024. ↩︎
David Bloor argues that an infinite sequence of perspectives, to which truth is relative, parallels the way causal claims can be traced indefinitely.[1] For example, consider the following causal claims:
This can continue indefinitely. Similarly, with relative truths:
To quote Bloor:
We can take the sequence as far as we want and then stop when our curiosity is satisfied. That is once we reach something that we take for granted.
Bloor's position is that infinite regress of perspectives means there is always more work to do if we are inclined to do it. We could, if we wished, try to uncover the perspective from which (A3) is true. But we probably don't need to -- just as we may not need to give earlier causes than are stated in (C2). [2]
Bloor, David (2005). "Toward a Sociology of Epistemic Things". Perspectives on Science. 13 (3): 285–312. ↩︎
Relativism. Retrieved October 30, 2024. ↩︎