According to modern relativism, values and meaning in the world are at most cultural fabrications, perhaps evolving in a culture as a best method. In a sense that sounds like you can interpret experiences (including sense experience) in any way you wish so long as it works for you. To posit that what works for you is objectively useful (true) is something that it seems modern society practically doesn't believe. It's hard to get rid of any form of objective meaning, though- I think that's because it is necessary for thinking at all, and especially for communicating.
Therefore the contemplation and pursuit of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful (the Transcendentals) is only at best a matter of private belief and personal preference, and at worst it is silly and a waste of time because the Transcendentals claim to be objective when objectivity in spiritual matters doesn't exist (note that belief in that is claiming a one truth, though). If it were worthwhile for, say, me to pursue the Transcendentals, it would not be a personal matter any longer- we would be entering value judgement and the question of whether something is good for anyone at all. I am assuming that if you ask if something is good for you, you must consider that it could be good for other people like you, for situations like yours. Otherwise you have no information to consider, if you have never done this thing before. Therefore, even to ask the question of whether it is good for us is assuming the Transcendentals, and if you ask that question, or any other question of whether something is good or bad for us, you are treading the dangerous territory of Objective Morality which is in direct opposition to the pursuit of license (not happiness) in our culture.
Relativism seems, perhaps, to derive from Positivism that meaning and values cannot exist (though it could come from an earlier idea?); you have the idea Lewis talks about in the Abolition of Man that the idea that a waterfall is sublime is someone describing their feelings about a waterfall, not describing the waterfall. The idea that feelings can't be correct about the world around us seems to imply there could be no objective meaning that an object can convey, but I'd have to explain further why I get there and it's pretty hard to phrase. We shall see.
No comments:
Post a Comment