more on the relativity of truth.

The relativity of truth doesn’t mean that all truths are equally valid. Among relative truths, some are more truthful than others. And how can we measure their truthfulness? Ideally, the correspondence between the concept and the object in an absolute truth would be an identity. In the real world there is no possible identity between concepts and objects. Their correspondence instead is formed by mental associations. Associations in turn, have different degrees of consistency: consistency with experience and logical consistency. So among relative truths, the concepts that are more truthful are the ones with higher degrees of logical consistency and higher degrees of consistency with experience; that is, the ones that approximate reality with higher degrees of objectivity.

There is an apparent logical contradiction in stating that ‘truth is relative’; for it seems as if we would be stating an absolute truth. But the contradiction is not rela and the relativity of truth not only is consistent with monism and experience, but it is also self-consistent. If we think of the concept of ‘relative truth’ as an absolute, it seems to be self-contradictory. But regardless of what we think, the concept of ‘relative truth’ is itself subjective, for there are not two persons in the world with identical ideas about ‘relative truth‘; and not in any one person idea of ‘relative truth’ is ever the same. The concept of ‘relative truth’ then, is subjective therefore relative. Furthermore, it is relative and more truthful than the idea of an absolute truth, for it is self-consistent and more consistent with experience than the concept of absolute truths.


%d bloggers like this: