Epistemological Relativism: Can Reason Represent Reality?

Originally posted on A contrario on 16 June 2007

I have always had a very difficult time grasping the intellectual foundations of relativism in post-modernity. As I continue to examine the tenets of this popular philosophy, I view it with rapidly diminishing credulity. To minimise confusion as much as possible in this discussion (a rather difficult task when dealing with certain components of post-modern ideology), I should begin by clearly stating the elements of relativism that I am taking exception with. The particular claim of relativism I am referring to is that which contends that because the human intellect is incapable of acquiring complete and infallible knowledge of any given truth, no single interpretation of a truth can be considered superior to any other. This notion, perhaps more accurately referred to as epistemological relativism, is a prevalent idea in some schools of post-modern thought.

The former part of this belief does, in my experience, express the true nature of the universe. With perhaps the exception of our own minds, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for humans to existentially validate the very existence, let alone the true nature, of anything in the physical world with absolute certainty. The occurrence of delusions and hallucinations in people suffering from mental disorders or temporary extreme circumstances (e.g. sleep deprivation) demonstrate that even our own senses may deceive us as to the nature of our reality. On the other hand, the latter part of the original statement, that therefore no one claim to truth can be superior to another, is the intellectual equivalent of an eight-year-old throwing away his favourite action figure and bursting into tears because one of the arms broke off. This analogy can be taken a step further: although short one arm, the child's toy is still essentially functional. While it may not be as much fun to play with, the toy can still run, jump, and carry a gun or a hammer (depending on your preference). Similarly, while absolute knowledge may not be possible, partial knowledge is still available, and different statements can be compared by evaluating the degree to which they account for whatever data is available.

The fact that part of the system is flawed by no means justifies the complete abandonment of the entire system. While the modernism that preceded the post-modern movement did indeed result in some horrible movements, it did so by making the same mistake that some proponents of post-modernity make: it swung the pendulum of thought all the way to one extreme. As history has demonstrated, life at either extreme can be rather dangerous. While popular adherence to the principles of modernity paved the way for atrocities like the holocaust and the oppressive corruption of communism practised in the former Soviet Union, the plurality of moral standards that accompanies an extreme formulation of post-modernity removes objectivity from right and wrong and places the power to define it in the hands of those most capable of forcing their values on the remainder of society, creating a totalitarian society where "might" does indeed "make right"1.

Reality consistently demonstrates that certain beliefs or "truth claims" are more valid, and therefore usually more helpful, than others. For instance, few would argue that current knowledge of bacteriology and its role in epidemiology is no more valid or helpful than previous beliefs that attributed fevers and the like to miasmas2. Even in morality, the prohibition against wrongful homicide and the importance of justice appear to possess an almost universal relevance3. This is not to say that our contemporary views on medicine or justice are necessarily entirely correct, though. I have little doubt that, if society continues to try to advance toward a true understanding of the universe, it will arrive at some conclusions and adopt certain beliefs that are "more true" than those we hold now, just as we have done in the past. Rather than abandoning all of our current beliefs because some of them may not be accurate, we should continue to build on the ideas that we do know to be reliable, and continue to refine the approximations of reality that we consider "close enough" or "almost there". We also ought to consider the implications of certain values and beliefs that appear to have perpetuated unchanged throughout our social evolution. The law of general beneficence (i.e. the maxim "do to others as you would have done to you"), for instance, while difficult to uphold, is generally considered a universally relevant social maxim, despite the fact that it was originally stated over 2,000 years ago by a person whose deity many question. The epistemological challenge, then, lies not in creating an entire system of morality and ontology for one's self out of nothing, but in identifying which theories and beliefs presently circulating in the Marketplace of Ideas appear to possess universal significance and which ones appear to be artefacts of our current or previous states of knowledge.

Post-modern ideology can be very helpful in this endeavour, as it forces us to examine suppositions or ontological tenets that we may have otherwise taken for granted. The mistrust of absolute truth in post-modern thought can be an effective guard against dogmatism and intellectual tyranny. The complete abandonment of any objective standard of truth that some proponents of completely relativistic thought encourage, however, often reflects not a serious epistemological commitment but a moral and intellectual apathy that is becoming increasingly prevalent in contemporary society. Many contemporary people, upon encountering a challenge to their current mode of thought, apparently prefer to either abandon an idea or pursuit altogether or simply refuse to question the metaphysical validity of their beliefs. I fear that, just as physical apathy leads to a weakening of the body and an eventual decline in health, such mental apathy will also lead to a weakening of the mind that may remove any external barriers against emotional manipulation and exploitation of entire populations.

1. 1. This sort of totalitarian regime is just one of many dystopic states that may arise in the "cultural madhouse" that accompanies the presence of post-modernity in sociology. For more details, see "post-modernism" A Dictionary of Sociology. John Scott and Gordon Marshall. Oxford University Press 2005. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed by Brian Napoletano. 17 June 2007 [link]
2. 2. See: Roy Porter "history of medicine" The Oxford Companion to Medicine. Stephen Lock, John M. Last, and George Dunea. Oxford University Press 2001. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. Accessed by Brian Napoletano. 17 June 2007 [link]
3. 3. For several examples of these and other "nearly universal" moral ideals, see C.S. Lewis' "The Abolition of Man" (1972). Simon & Schuster, Inc., New York, NY, United States. ISBN 0-684-82371-3 Purchase at Amazon.com