...one thing I’ve gleaned from his admirers and detractors alike is that he’s an archenemy of relativism. He believes in absolute truths and morals that don’t change, standing against a culture of pluralism and postmodern subjectivity.[via The musings and Teachings of Camassia]
Hmmm, this is sounding familiar. But I have to say, coming as I do from the virtual font of liberal relativism, that the way conservatives characterize it never seems quite right. The liberals I know are not total relativists who think there’s no such thing as fixed truth or good and evil. However, they have themselves partly to blame for this misconception. Just as the Shawmut Baptists say that they follow unchanging draconian values but practice something a lot more like situational ethics, pluralists tend to talk the language of relativism but can seem awfully absolutist a lot of the time.
This fact, I believe, comes from the basic nature of human social life. We bond with people over what we have in common, but there is no one with whom we agree on absolutely everything. So relational life is a constant negotiation working out what things you simply must share, and what is unimportant enough that you can disagree without disrupting the relationship or community. This is true of conservatives and liberals, Christians and atheists — everybody, really.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment