Postmodernism's Delimma: Part 1

I was going to write this paper back in September. I started on it and worked on it for about a week and then I kind of hit a roadblock and totally stopped. Well, I have started to work on it again and I'm going to start posting parts of it. Hopefully this will inspire me to complete the work as best as I possibly can as soon as I possibly can. This first installment deals only with the philosophical propositions that hold postmodernism up, namely that of relativism. Also, I should note that, although the thoughts are my own, I am a philosophical second-hander and am basing most of my assumptions in this paper on the work of David Wells and his book "Above All Earthly Pow'rs" and my experience in college as a philosophy minor and hearing my professor describe his own relativism. I also realize that this is only a brief handling of the subject and could us a great deal more depth, so I would appreciate any comments anybody has on the subject. Anyway, without further ado, here is part one:

The Definitional Impossibility of Relativity

As our world moves farther along the road of post-modernism, we must consider whether or not its guiding principles are valid or not. Post-modernism relies very heavily on relativity. Postmodernism is a move away from modernism and the enlightenment and the belief that there is absolute truth. Truth is relative and is defined by the self, now. Whatever is true for you is what truth is. We must be tolerant of everyone else’s beliefs and “truths” because there is no set truth that we must believe in. The only thing that we can be intolerant of is the forcing of our own “truths” onto someone who does not accept those truths, and therefore, is not held to them. That person is only held to the truths that he or she accepts. Therefore, postmodernism can be defined as the rejection of absolute truths (hence the "post" modern) and the belief that truth is now relegated to the individual and cannot be universally applied.

This belief is founded upon the fact that many people have very differing views of what truth is. I believe that such and such is truth, but someone else believes that the opposite is true. How can we determine who is right? What determines absolutes? Instead of wrestling with these questions, the postmodern turns to the answer that there must not be any absolutes because we can’t seem to agree on what truth is and who determines it. Truth is relative. But can this be possible?

In a word, no. Relativity is definitionally impossible. Relativity is founded upon the principle that there are no absolute truths. This is an absolute statement. But we’ve all heard this objection before. It usually goes something like this:
Professor: There is no such thing as absolutes!
Smarty-pants Student: But isn't that an absolute statement?

Why hasn’t this derailed post-modernism? Is this objection a correct one? I believe that it is a correct objection. We’ll deal with why it hasn’t derailed this dominant belief system later. For now, I will deal with the philosophical problems that relativism must face. I believe it is a correct objection because for postmodernism to be true it must be the case that there are no truths that are absolute, otherwise, we could hold all people to the same absolute truths. If there are absolutes, then postmodernism fails because its guiding principle, relativity, crumbles. To put it in a classical argument it would go as follows:
1. If relativism is true, then there must be no absolutes.
2. There are absolutes (as demonstrated by the above statement)
3. Therefore, relativism isn’t true
Relativism is, therefore, definitionally impossible.

But are there ways around this? Postmoderns can’t say that there are no absolutes because that would be an absolute statement. They can’t say that there are absolutes because that denies relativity and is an absolute statement. But can we say that there might be absolutes? This is not an absolute statement, because it doesn’t say that absolutes exist or not, it only allows for the possibility. But it is this very possibility that denies relativity. Relativists cannot allow for the possibility of absolutes because that would mean that truth is not always defined by ourselves, but that there can be (or at least might be) objective truths for all people. So relativity in general is impossible. But can we allow for ethical relativity? This is where postmodernism hangs. After all, a postmodern relativist would still claim that 2 + 2 = 4 in all cases, but they would deny that what is ethically true for me must be ethically true for others. So postmoderns wouldn’t deny absolutes absolutely, but they would deny them in ethical matters and matters of religion.

However, the same problem crops up in this area as well. Definitionally, a relativist cannot claim that there are no ethical absolutes because that is an absolute statement. However, it could be objected that the above absolute statement isn’t an ethical statement and therefore does not fall into the same trap as before. That is to say, you can make absolute statements about ethics because those absolute statements only negate general relativity, not ethical relativity. Therefore, I can say there are no ethical absolutes without denying my original premise. This is an untenable position. In this scenario absolutes are allowed but only in regard to general matters, not in regard to ethical maters and then trying to differentiate between ethical relativity and general relativity. If general relativity doesn’t exist, then how can ethical relativity? We cannot make absolute statements about ethics and still hold on to ethical relativity. I cannot think of any argumentation that would support this without becoming absurd.

There is another problem with ethical relativity. Relativity itself isn’t the only force behind postmodernism. Moral elitism, or rather, the repugnance of it is also a driving force behind postmodernism and the relativity that is its bedrock and cornerstone. Postmodernism rejects the idea that we can impose our ethics and morals on another culture. How dare we claim that we know the only right way to live and act and then expect all other cultures and persons to ascribe to it. This is one of the main criticisms of religion in general and Christianity in particular. It is okay (indeed, even encouraged) to have and hold certain religious beliefs. The problem comes when we attempt to change the worldview and ethics of those who don’t believe the way we do. How can we possibly say that we have the right to try and convert other religions and peoples to our way of thinking. There are so many different religions and faiths, how can we claim to have the best one? Therefore, ethics (and religion, morals, etc.) must be relative. How can we impose our ethics on one another?

But in saying this, they deny their own ethical relativism. They have made supposed moral humility an absolute moral good (not to mention that their moral humility turns into pride when confronting those seeking to impose ethical absolutes). They also commit the same error as general relativity because it declares there can be no moral absolutes. This, obviously, is an absolute statement. Postmoderns cannot cling to moral relativity and then declare tolerance of other religious views an absolute moral good. You cannot attack those who are intolerant of other religions and then say that morals and ethics are relevant. Ethical relativity in the postmodern worldview is impossible.