The Case Against Epistemic Relativism<\/title>\n<link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,700;0,900;1,400;1,700&family=EB+Garamond:ital,wght@0,400;0,500;0,600;1,400;1,500&family=Cormorant+Garamond:ital,wght@0,300;0,400;1,300;1,400&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\n<style>\n :root {\n --black: #0c0c0c;\n --gray-900: #1c1c1c;\n --gray-700: #3d3d3d;\n --gray-500: #6e6e6e;\n --gray-300: #b8b8b8;\n --gray-200: #dedede;\n --gray-100: #e6e6e6;\n --gray-50: #f5f5f5;\n --white: #ffffff;\n }\n\n *, *::before, *::after { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }\n\n html { font-size: 18px; background: var(--gray-100); }\n\n body {\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n color: var(--gray-900);\n background: var(--gray-100);\n min-height: 100vh;\n padding: 56px 16px;\n }\n\n .page {\n max-width: 800px;\n margin: 0 auto;\n background: var(--white);\n box-shadow: 0 2px 48px rgba(0,0,0,0.11), 0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.07);\n }\n\n .top-rule { height: 4px; background: var(--black); }\n .top-rule-thin { height: 1px; background: var(--gray-300); margin-top: 3px; }\n\n \/* \u2500\u2500 Masthead \u2500\u2500 *\/\n .masthead {\n padding: 48px 72px 40px;\n text-align: center;\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n }\n\n .section-label {\n display: block;\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.60rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.38em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n margin-bottom: 26px;\n }\n\n h1.headline {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: clamp(2.1rem, 5vw, 3.4rem);\n font-weight: 900;\n line-height: 1.15;\n color: var(--black);\n letter-spacing: -0.015em;\n margin-bottom: 24px;\n }\n\n .deck {\n font-family: 'Cormorant Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-style: italic;\n font-size: 1.18rem;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n line-height: 1.65;\n max-width: 560px;\n margin: 0 auto 30px;\n }\n\n .meta-row {\n display: flex;\n align-items: center;\n justify-content: center;\n gap: 16px;\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.62rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.22em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n }\n\n \/* \u2500\u2500 Article body \u2500\u2500 *\/\n .article-body { padding: 56px 72px 80px; }\n\n .drop-cap::first-letter {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 5.2rem;\n font-weight: 900;\n line-height: 0.78;\n float: left;\n margin-right: 10px;\n margin-top: 6px;\n color: var(--black);\n }\n\n .article-body p {\n font-size: 1.02rem;\n line-height: 1.95;\n color: #252525;\n margin-bottom: 1.5em;\n text-align: justify;\n hyphens: auto;\n }\n\n .article-body h2 {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.55rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n color: var(--black);\n margin: 3.2em 0 0.9em;\n padding-bottom: 0.55em;\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n line-height: 1.25;\n }\n\n .article-body h3 {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.2rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--gray-900);\n margin: 2.8em 0 0.8em;\n }\n\n .article-body hr {\n border: none;\n border-top: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n margin: 3em auto;\n width: 72%;\n }\n\n .article-body ul {\n list-style: none;\n margin: 1.4em 0 1.8em 0;\n padding: 0;\n border-left: 2px solid var(--gray-200);\n padding-left: 24px;\n }\n\n .article-body ul li {\n font-size: 1rem;\n line-height: 1.85;\n color: #252525;\n margin-bottom: 1em;\n position: relative;\n }\n\n .article-body ul li::before {\n content: '\u2014';\n position: absolute;\n left: -28px;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n font-weight: 300;\n }\n\n .article-body strong { font-weight: 600; color: var(--black); }\n .article-body em { font-style: italic; color: var(--gray-700); }\n\n .pull-quote {\n border-top: 2px solid var(--black);\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-300);\n margin: 3em 0;\n padding: 1.6em 0 1.4em;\n text-align: center;\n }\n .pull-quote p {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.32rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--black);\n line-height: 1.5;\n margin: 0 !important;\n text-align: center !important;\n }\n\n .article-body blockquote {\n border-left: 3px solid var(--gray-300);\n margin: 2.5em 0;\n padding: 0.6em 0 0.6em 1.6em;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n font-size: 1.04rem;\n line-height: 1.8;\n }\n\n .end-mark {\n text-align: center;\n margin-top: 3.5em;\n padding-top: 2em;\n border-top: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.64rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.32em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n }\n\n .bottom-rule { height: 1px; background: var(--gray-300); }\n .bottom-rule-thick { height: 3px; background: var(--black); margin-top: 2px; }\n\n @media (max-width: 640px) {\n body { padding: 0; }\n .masthead { padding: 32px 24px 28px; }\n .article-body { padding: 36px 24px 60px; }\n .drop-cap::first-letter { font-size: 3.8rem; }\n }\n<\/style>\n<\/head>\n<body>\n<article class=\"page\">\n\n <div class=\"top-rule\"><\/div>\n <div class=\"top-rule-thin\"><\/div>\n\n <header class=\"masthead\">\n Phi\u00adlos\u00ado\u00adphy \u00b7 Epis\u00adte\u00admol\u00ado\u00adgy \u00b7 Log\u00adic<\/span>\n <h1 class=\"headline\">The Case Against Epistemic Relativism<\/h1>\n On the Dif\u00adfer\u00adence Between Per\u00adcep\u00adtion and Real\u00adi\u00adty<\/p>\n <div class=\"meta-row\">\n Inquiry<\/span>\n \u00b7<\/span>\n Phi\u00adlos\u00ado\u00adphy of Knowl\u00adedge<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/header>\n\n <div class=\"article-body\">\n\n It is often said that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive and not absolute. But does any\u00adone still believe such seem\u00ading\u00adly per\u00adsua\u00adsive sophistry?<\/p>\n\n Just because some\u00adthing appears per\u00adsua\u00adsive doesn\u2019t mean it is log\u00adi\u00adcal. This gap simul\u00adta\u00adne\u00adous\u00adly mas\u00adsive and hid\u00adden is the hid\u00ading place where the com\u00adpo\u00adnents of mis\u00adun\u00adder\u00adstand\u00ading lurk all around us.<\/p>\n\n Before we dive into the details, here are three quick exam\u00adples to clar\u00adi\u00adfy the idea from the start:<\/p>\n\n <ul>\n <li>The tem\u00adper\u00ada\u00adture of water at 20\u00b0C<\/strong> does not change but some\u00adone com\u00ading out of the desert finds it cold, while some\u00adone com\u00ading out of the snow finds it warm. The truth did not move the ref\u00ader\u00adence point moved.<\/li>\n <li>Your weight on a scale is a sin\u00adgle num\u00adber, but peo\u00adple dif\u00adfer in describ\u00ading you: fat, thin, or accept\u00adable. The num\u00adber did not change; the stan\u00addards did.<\/li>\n <li>Psy\u00adcho\u00adlog\u00adi\u00adcal pain, for exam\u00adple, has no uni\u00adfied unit of mea\u00adsure\u00adment, but it exists, it is real, and it is absolute in its exis\u00adtence, even if every human dif\u00adfers in defin\u00ading it.<\/li>\n <\/ul>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Hidden Gap<\/h2>\n\n This idea is often raised in argu\u00adments, like when some\u00adone says: \u201cTruth is not absolute because we live in a mov\u00ading world, not a sta\u00adt\u00adic one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n This sounds very beau\u00adti\u00adful and emo\u00adtion\u00adal, and it seems con\u00advinc\u00ading because it con\u00adtains a pow\u00ader\u00adful state\u00adment: that the world is chang\u00ading and not fixed.<\/p>\n\n How\u00adev\u00ader, even if this state\u00adment is true, it does not log\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly fol\u00adlow that the entire sen\u00adtence is cor\u00adrect.<\/p>\n\n It is like some\u00adone say\u00ading: \u201cThe col\u00ador of the sea is not real because it mere\u00adly reflects the col\u00ador of the sky.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Okay, I don\u2019t dis\u00adagree with this state\u00adment, it is beau\u00adti\u00adful, pow\u00ader\u00adful, and very per\u00adsua\u00adsive. Any\u00adone who dis\u00adagrees with it seems to know noth\u00ading about nat\u00adur\u00adal sci\u00adences.<\/p>\n\n But it con\u00adtains a log\u00adi\u00adcal gap.<\/p>\n\n Think about it: a liq\u00aduid could be blue, we place it in a pool with blue tiles, or use water with blue dye, out in the open air and using lit\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly the same way of think\u00ading, accord\u00ading to the pre\u00advi\u00adous prin\u00adci\u00adple: its col\u00ador is not blue, but rather it reflects the col\u00ador of the sky. \n Same prin\u00adci\u00adple, same result. \n Do you see where the decep\u00adtion lies?<\/p>\n\n The prin\u00adci\u00adple stat\u00ading \u201cThe sea reflects the sky, there\u00adfore its col\u00ador is not real\u201d is par\u00adtial\u00adly true in the case of the sea (though the sky itself appears blue due to the scat\u00adter\u00ading of sun\u00adlight in the atmosphere;Rayleigh scattering);but it is not a uni\u00adver\u00adsal law to be gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adized to every\u00adthing that is liq\u00aduid and blue. When treat\u00aded as an absolute truth, it col\u00adlaps\u00ades at the first real test.<\/p>\n\n I said at the begin\u00adning that it is a hid\u00adden gap. If you look close\u00adly, you will find it in many things that seem<\/em>\u2026 seem or appear per\u00adsua\u00adsive. \n Even though it is by no means a require\u00adment that every\u00adthing per\u00adsua\u00adsive is the absolute truth; Incom\u00adplete\u00adness The\u00ado\u00adrems demon\u00adstrate this as well.<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Number from Every Angle<\/h2>\n\n For exam\u00adple: the num\u00adber 7<\/strong> in Hindi;as it is some\u00adtimes writ\u00adten in Ara\u00adbic (V<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n One per\u00adson may see it from a cer\u00adtain angle as indeed being the num\u00adber 7<\/strong>. \n Anoth\u00ader may see it from the oppo\u00adsite angle as its inverse;the num\u00adber 8<\/strong> (\u039b<\/em>). \n A third per\u00adson might see it from a mid\u00addle angle;as the num\u00adber 2<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n They might argue that this is clear evi\u00addence that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive depend\u00ading on the angle from which you view the sub\u00adject.<\/p>\n\n Okay, wait.<\/p>\n\n The abstract truth, and if we want to be pre\u00adcise, no one knows the \u201cthing-in-itself\u201d exactly;is that this is a numer\u00adi\u00adcal enti\u00adty: with a cer\u00adtain num\u00adber of sides, a cer\u00adtain struc\u00adture, and a cer\u00adtain num\u00adber of angles.<\/p>\n\n But things got mixed up, and the con\u00adcept of truth became: \u201cSince it depends on our under\u00adstand\u00ading of it, it is rel\u00ada\u00adtive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n You see it this way but truth in itself is not forced to sub\u00admit to the laws of your mind, which already sub\u00admit to the laws of the sens\u00ades, time, space, and the laws of your beliefs.<\/p>\n\n A fourth per\u00adson might see it as noth\u00ading more than a boomerang, that wood\u00aden stick that flies and returns and they can\u00adnot be blamed, that is their angle.<\/p>\n\n But the truth as the mind sees it is not the truth itself. This is anoth\u00ader very deep sub\u00adject addressed by great philoso\u00adphers, such as Kant.<\/p>\n\n Rather, it is a point of view, or in anoth\u00ader term: an angle of vision. I do not know why the name \u201ctruth\u201d became com\u00admon\u00adly attached to it.<\/p>\n\n In oth\u00ader words: it seems per\u00adsua\u00adsive that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive, but they for\u00adgot to add: \u201caccord\u00ading to our point of view.\u201d<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Rose<\/h2>\n\n The sun, from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of one per\u00adson, is fire; from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of a pagan, it is a god, and from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of a physi\u00adcist, it is a ther\u00admonu\u00adclear reac\u00adtion. Will the sun be affect\u00aded by our point of view of it?<\/p>\n\n And the rose;let\u2019s take the Damask rose, famous for its dense petals and soft tex\u00adture, the very one from which rose oil is extracted;this rose:<\/p>\n\n From a child\u2019s per\u00adspec\u00adtive: a beau\u00adti\u00adful shape. This does not mean his words rep\u00adre\u00adsent the absolute truth. He is talk\u00ading about a prop\u00ader\u00adty, not the essence.<\/p>\n\n From the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of lovers: a sym\u00adbol of love. This does not mean it is an absolute truth in itself. They, too, are talk\u00ading about a prop\u00ader\u00adty, not the essence.<\/p>\n\n From a scientist\u2019s per\u00adspec\u00adtive: it is a com\u00adplex com\u00adpo\u00adsi\u00adtion of organ\u00adic acids, amine groups, and cel\u00adlu\u00adlose chains. Pig\u00adments like antho\u00adcyanins give it its col\u00ador, and volatile oils give it its fra\u00adgrance. But even this is an inven\u00adto\u00adry of the char\u00adac\u00adter\u00adis\u00adtics of its inter\u00adac\u00adtion with our tools, not a grasp of the essence of the rose in itself.<\/p>\n\n This does not mean that the con\u00adcept and essence of the rose\u2026 in the sense of being a rose, will sub\u00admit to the con\u00adcept of lovers or the scientist\u2019s method\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy.<\/p>\n\n Rather, in its essence, it is: \u201ca cer\u00adtain being.\u201d We are still dis\u00adcov\u00ader\u00ading things in it; mean\u00ading we haven\u2019t actu\u00adal\u00adly reached its true real\u00adi\u00adty.<\/p>\n\n The rose, as it tru\u00adly is, might be some\u00adthing else entire\u00adly that reflects all these \u201crosy\u201d char\u00adac\u00adter\u00adis\u00adtics. \n It might be a low\u00ader rank of anoth\u00ader, high\u00ader mod\u00adel of a rose. \n And it might be\u2026 \n And it might be\u2026<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n Let\u2019s stay with the same exam\u00adple for a moment.<\/p>\n\n The Damask rose feels soft to you. But that does not mean it is an absolute truth that it is soft.<\/p>\n\n Does a hedge\u00adhog feel it the same way?<\/p>\n\n Or is there an exter\u00adnal fac\u00adtor affect\u00ading your sen\u00adsa\u00adtion this way;a fac\u00adtor that has noth\u00ading to do with the rose at all;such as the struc\u00adture of your nerves that sense touch, or the hid\u00adden oils in the fin\u00adgers that leave prints on sur\u00adfaces? Do these inter\u00adact with the prop\u00ader\u00adty of fric\u00adtion to give the rose this tac\u00adtile def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion spe\u00adcif\u00adic to us as humans: \u201cits tex\u00adture is soft\u201d?<\/p>\n\n Is the rose, in its absolute truth, real\u00adly like this?<\/p>\n\n Well, what about a blind per\u00adson who has nev\u00ader seen a rose in their life;do they see it as the same thing?<\/p>\n\n What if we were all blind? Would our con\u00adcept of the rose change?<\/p>\n\n What I want to pro\u00adpose regard\u00ading this exam\u00adple is: we do not know the absolute truth of the rose. That is, its pure secret;its essence as it is.<\/p>\n\n Some\u00adone might argue: \u201cIt\u2019s a rose, man; sure\u00adly sci\u00aden\u00adtists know its absolute truth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Okay;has research in this branch of botany stopped? Have they fin\u00adished the cur\u00adricu\u00adlum? Of course not. At least dur\u00ading this peri\u00adod, I haven\u2019t found any pru\u00addent researcher say\u00ading they know every\u00adthing per\u00adfect\u00adly about the sci\u00adence of flow\u00aders. In fact, we enter anoth\u00ader maze: what does \u201cevery\u00adthing\u201d mean?<\/p>\n\n But the big\u00adger maze is: what is the absolute truth of the rose?<\/p>\n\n Since these are mazes, and the human brain loves shortcuts;they take a mas\u00adsive short\u00adcut and say, \u201cTruth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive,\u201d and they con\u00advince them\u00adselves of that. When they see a large num\u00adber of peo\u00adple con\u00advinced of the same thing, they think it is real\u00adi\u00adty and truth.<\/p>\n\n Have you ever asked in the world of bees about the nature of the rose to them? Should we take their def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion, since they are more deeply immersed in the world of flow\u00aders than most humans? Even though their sens\u00ades are dif\u00adfer\u00adent and their per\u00adcep\u00adtion is dif\u00adfer\u00adent?<\/p>\n\n For\u00adgive the maze and the great pres\u00adsure in a mas\u00adsive field of epis\u00adte\u00admol\u00ado\u00adgy.<\/p>\n\n What I want to say is: even the rose, we do not know its absolute truth. Rather, we see it through the lens of emo\u00adtions if we are lovers, or through the lens of the sens\u00ades if we are just passers\u00adby on the road, or from a pure\u00adly mate\u00adr\u00adi\u00adal aspect if we see it from a scientist\u2019s point of view.<\/p>\n\n This does not mean it is forced to sub\u00admit to our sen\u00adso\u00adry sys\u00adtem and our men\u00adtal\u00adi\u00adty. Because if it were forced;quite simply;magic would be real, and we would change things just by look\u00ading at them or by our mere desire. But things do not work with such fan\u00adta\u00adsy.<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Object in the Pocket<\/h2>\n\nImag\u00adine you are sit\u00adting at a lunch table, hav\u00ading just met your girl\u00adfriend and her friend. In your pock\u00adet: a small, red, rough-tex\u00adtured octag\u00ado\u00adnal object.<\/p>\n\nYour girl\u00adfriend notices the strange bulge. Not know\u00ading what it is, she decides you are sim\u00adply eccen\u00adtric \u2014 the kind of per\u00adson who car\u00adries odd lit\u00adtle things around for no good rea\u00adson. And that, frankly, will not help your case.<\/p>\n\nHer friend, who has just been served a large burg\u00ader, glances at the shape in your pock\u00adet mid-bite. Some\u00adthing about the size and the moment makes her won\u00adder, absurd\u00adly, whether you are hid\u00ading food in there. That also will not help your case.<\/p>\n\nWhen lunch ends and you all stand to leave, you walk a lit\u00adtle too quick\u00adly behind them. A secu\u00adri\u00adty guard near\u00adby \u2014 the type who has not yet proved him\u00adself and is qui\u00adet\u00adly look\u00ading for the chance \u2014 notices your hur\u00adried step and the pro\u00adtru\u00adsion in your pock\u00adet. To him, it is nei\u00adther a trin\u00adket nor a snack. It is some\u00adthing to be sus\u00adpi\u00adcious of.<\/p>\n\nThree peo\u00adple. Three entire\u00adly dif\u00adfer\u00adent sto\u00adries. And yet the object did not move, did not change, did not con\u00adsult anyone\u2019s mood or hunger or sus\u00adpi\u00adcion before decid\u00ading what it was. It remained: a rough, red octa\u00adgon.<\/p>\n\nThis is where some draw the wrong con\u00adclu\u00adsion: \u201cEvery\u00adone saw it dif\u00adfer\u00adent\u00adly, there\u00adfore truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive.\u201d But what actu\u00adal\u00adly shift\u00aded was not the truth. It was the lens<\/em>. The plu\u00adral\u00adi\u00adty of per\u00adspec\u00adtives only proves that per\u00adcep\u00adtion is per\u00adson\u00adal, not that the object bent itself to accom\u00admo\u00addate each view\u00ader.<\/p>\n\nMis\u00adtak\u00ading the lens for the land\u00adscape is the old\u00adest error in this argu\u00adment.<\/p>\n\n\n <h2>Light;And What It Hides About Absolute Truth<\/h2>\n\n Pro\u00adpo\u00adnents of mod\u00adern physics might not like what I\u2019m say\u00ading. Some have become pre\u00adoc\u00adcu\u00adpied with Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s cat and wave the\u00ado\u00adry, think\u00ading that the strange behav\u00adiors of light in the dou\u00adble-slit exper\u00adi\u00adment are the great\u00adest evi\u00addence that truth is lost or relative;some even went so far as to say that obser\u00adva\u00adtion itself inter\u00advenes in the for\u00adma\u00adtion of truth, and that truth does not exist inde\u00adpen\u00addent of the observ\u00ader.<\/p>\n\n But hold on.<\/p>\n\n When sci\u00aden\u00adtists say that light is a wave and a par\u00adti\u00adcle at the same time;they are not say\u00ading its truth is lost or fluc\u00adtu\u00adat\u00ading. They are say\u00ading exact\u00adly the oppo\u00adsite: the nature of this enti\u00adty is like this, a con\u00adstant law, encom\u00adpass\u00ading both states togeth\u00ader.<\/p>\n\n Let me bring the idea clos\u00ader in a dif\u00adfer\u00adent way.<\/p>\n\n In log\u00adic, when we say: If such and such, then the result is such and such<\/em>;we are not talk\u00ading about the volatil\u00adi\u00adty of truth, but about the pre\u00adci\u00adsion of its sys\u00adtem. The func\u00adtion f<\/em> that links the con\u00addi\u00adtion to the result is the absolute truth, not the result alone. If the obser\u00adva\u00adtion is of a cer\u00adtain type, light behaves as a wave. If the obser\u00adva\u00adtion is of anoth\u00ader type, it behaves as a par\u00adti\u00adcle. The law gov\u00adern\u00ading this trans\u00adfor\u00adma\u00adtion does not change;it is rig\u00ador\u00adous, con\u00adstant, and incred\u00adi\u00adbly pre\u00adcise. What changes is x<\/em>;the con\u00addi\u00adtion we input. And the con\u00addi\u00adtion itself is part of the equa\u00adtion, not out\u00adside of it.<\/p>\n\n This is regard\u00adless of the human emo\u00adtion\u00adal shock from the con\u00addi\u00adtion of chang\u00ading states\u2026 as it appears that the pho\u00adton has con\u00adscious\u00adness. This is what appears, and I will not delve here into the shock of state change and how it\u2019s pos\u00adsi\u00adble that a pho\u00adton, when sub\u00adject\u00aded to obser\u00adva\u00adtion, knows it is being observed and changes its behav\u00adior\u2026 that is not our top\u00adic here. Also, this shock was a large cloud for them that made them hal\u00adlu\u00adci\u00adnate log\u00adic left and right and say truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive; some even went fur\u00adther and said there is no truth at all and every\u00adthing we know is an illu\u00adsion. Regard\u00adless, let\u2019s return to the ground of our sub\u00adject.<\/p>\n\n In oth\u00ader words:<\/p>\n\n In log\u00adic, there is a mas\u00adsive dif\u00adfer\u00adence between \u201csim\u00adple truth\u201d and \u201cthe truth of con\u00addi\u00adtion and result\u201d (If \u2026 Then<\/em>). The absolute truth here is not the \u201cpar\u00adti\u00adcle\u201d in iso\u00adla\u00adtion, nor is it the \u201cwave\u201d in iso\u00adla\u00adtion; rather, it is the uni\u00adver\u00adsal law that gov\u00aderns the rela\u00adtion\u00adship between the observ\u00ader and the observed. If the cos\u00admic rule says: (If mea\u00adsure\u00adment con\u00adtext \u201cA\u201d exists, then light will behave with behav\u00adior \u201cB\u201d), then this rule itself is an absolute truth, con\u00adstant, and not sub\u00adject to human whims.<\/p>\n\n \u201cObser\u00adva\u00adtion\u201d does not cre\u00adate truth from noth\u00ading; it is an \u201cinput\u201d in a mighty cos\u00admic equa\u00adtion. Just as the boil\u00ading point of water is not a fixed num\u00adber (100<\/strong>) in all con\u00addi\u00adtions, but rather \u201ca val\u00adue that fol\u00adlows the state of pres\u00adsure.\u201d Does the boil\u00ading of water at 70<\/strong> degrees atop Mount Ever\u00adest mean that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive? Absolute\u00adly not! It means that the absolute truth is the \u201cfixed math\u00ade\u00admat\u00adi\u00adcal rela\u00adtion\u00adship between heat and pres\u00adsure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n We are the ones who fall into the trap of \u201crel\u00ada\u00adtiv\u00adi\u00adty\u201d when we frag\u00adment truth and try to cram the \u201cwhole\u201d into the \u201cpart.\u201d We are like some\u00adone look\u00ading at a cylin\u00adder from the side and see\u00ading a rec\u00adtan\u00adgle, then look\u00ading at it from the base and see\u00ading a cir\u00adcle; the rec\u00adtan\u00adgle is real, and the cir\u00adcle is real, but the tran\u00adscen\u00addent absolute truth is the \u201ccylin\u00adder\u201d that com\u00adbined the two oppo\u00adsites in its sin\u00adgle essence, and remained as it is while our angles of vision danced around it.<\/p>\n\n What some call \u201crel\u00ada\u00adtiv\u00adi\u00adty\u201d is, in real\u00adi\u00adty, a \u201cdefi\u00adcien\u00adcy in the tools of com\u00adpre\u00adhen\u00adsion.\u201d Exis\u00adtence does not change just by us look\u00ading at it; rather, our look\u00ading at it is what can\u00adnot cap\u00adture more than one \u201cfre\u00adquen\u00adcy\u201d from the absolute sym\u00adpho\u00adny of exis\u00adtence. The \u201cstate\u201d is what changes, but the \u201clog\u00adi\u00adcal law\u201d that gov\u00aderns that state remains absolute, rig\u00ador\u00adous, and indif\u00adfer\u00adent to our con\u00adscious\u00adness.<\/p>\n\n <h3>Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n After all these mazes from the reflec\u00adtion of the sea to the puz\u00adzle of the num\u00adber 7<\/strong>, and from the dis\u00adsec\u00adtion of the rose to the com\u00adplex\u00adi\u00adties of quantum;we reach the final cer\u00adtain\u00adty: the error is not that our under\u00adstand\u00ading is rel\u00ada\u00adtive, for that is the tax of our exis\u00adtence with\u00adin time and space; the fatal error is the \u201cintel\u00adlec\u00adtu\u00adal lazi\u00adness\u201d that delet\u00aded half the sen\u00adtence and said \u201ctruth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive,\u201d for\u00adget\u00adting to com\u00adplete it: \u201caccord\u00ading to the nar\u00adrow\u00adness of our eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n We have con\u00adfused the \u201cthing-in-itself\u201d with \u201cthe inter\u00adac\u00adtion of our sens\u00ades with the thing.\u201d The rose does not turn to notice our aes\u00adthet\u00adic or chem\u00adi\u00adcal def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtions, the num\u00adber does not care who sees it as sev\u00aden or eight or a wood\u00aden stick, and light does not ask per\u00admis\u00adsion from our con\u00adscious\u00adness before prac\u00adtic\u00ading its dual nature accord\u00ading to its absolute laws.<\/p>\n\n <div class=\"pull-quote\">\n Truth is like the sun, shin\u00ading in the heart of exis\u00adtence; it is not harmed that we see it some\u00adtimes behind a cloud, or feel it some\u00adtimes as heat and some\u00adtimes as light, or that the blind per\u00adson sees it as noth\u00ading\u00adness.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n For exam\u00adple: when I wake up and don\u2019t drink cof\u00adfee, I am in a bad mood. If I drink it, my mood is bet\u00adter. Some\u00adone might say: \u201cThere\u00adfore, your mood is rel\u00ada\u00adtive and chang\u00ading.\u201d But it is more accu\u00adrate to say: \u201cThere\u00adfore, there is a fixed law that gov\u00aderns your mood accord\u00ading to the con\u00addi\u00adtion.\u201d The absolute truth here is not \u201cirri\u00adtabil\u00adi\u00adty,\u201d nor \u201ccheerfulness\u201d;it is the rela\u00adtion\u00adship between the cof\u00adfee and the state.<\/p>\n\n We are the ones who fail to see the full pic\u00adture all at once;so we see a shard and call it truth, we see a state and call it the whole truth, and we see that states mul\u00adti\u00adply so we call truth rel\u00ada\u00adtive. But the absolute truth is the law that unites all states, not any sin\u00adgle state.<\/p>\n\n Absolute truth reminds me of Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s say\u00ading at the end of his life when he said that all he dis\u00adcov\u00adered and all he did, he still felt like a small child gath\u00ader\u00ading shells from the seashore\u2026 what then of the ocean itself?<\/p>\n\n <blockquote>\n \u201cI do not claim to pos\u00adsess the absolute truth, but I refute the flim\u00adsy evi\u00addence used to deny its exis\u00adtence.\u201d\n <\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n <div class=\"end-mark\">\u2726 The End \u2726<\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <div class=\"bottom-rule\"><\/div>\n <div class=\"bottom-rule-thick\"><\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n<\/body>\n<\/html>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Is truth tru\u00adly rel\u00ada\u00adtive, or are we sim\u00adply vic\u00adtims of \u2018intel\u00adlec\u00adtu\u00adal lazi\u00adness\u2019? From the dual\u00adi\u00adty of light to the shift\u00ading per\u00adspec\u00adtives on a sim\u00adple rose, this arti\u00adcle explores why our sub\u00adjec\u00adtive per\u00adcep\u00adtion doesn\u2019t change objec\u00adtive real\u00adi\u00adty. Dive into a rig\u00ador\u00adous cri\u00adtique of Epis\u00adtemic Rel\u00ada\u00adtivism and dis\u00adcov\u00ader the absolute laws that gov\u00adern our seem\u00ading\u00adly mov\u00ading world.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":720,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[135,136],"tags":[140,137,139],"class_list":["post-703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy","category-analytic-philosophy","tag-critical-thinking","tag-epistemic-relativism","tag-epistemology"],"blocksy_meta":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-scaled.jpg",2560,1440,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-300x169.jpg",300,169,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-768x432.jpg",768,432,true],"large":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-1024x576.jpg",1024,576,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-1536x864.jpg",1536,864,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-2048x1152.jpg",2048,1152,true],"trp-custom-language-flag":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-18x10.jpg",18,10,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Ghassan Nabhan","author_link":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/author\/g21t5000\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Is truth truly relative, or are we simply victims of 'intellectual laziness'? From the duality of light to the shifting perspectives on a simple rose, this article explores why our subjective perception doesn't change objective reality. Dive into a rigorous critique of Epistemic Relativism and discover the absolute laws that govern our seemingly moving world.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":723,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions\/723"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

{"id":703,"date":"2026-04-30T15:49:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-30T15:49:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/?p=703"},"modified":"2026-04-30T17:08:59","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T17:08:59","slug":"the-case-against-epistemic-relativism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/the-case-against-epistemic-relativism\/","title":{"rendered":"The Case Against Epis\u00adtemic Rel\u00ada\u00adtivism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\nThe Case Against Epistemic Relativism<\/title>\n<link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,700;0,900;1,400;1,700&family=EB+Garamond:ital,wght@0,400;0,500;0,600;1,400;1,500&family=Cormorant+Garamond:ital,wght@0,300;0,400;1,300;1,400&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\n<style>\n :root {\n --black: #0c0c0c;\n --gray-900: #1c1c1c;\n --gray-700: #3d3d3d;\n --gray-500: #6e6e6e;\n --gray-300: #b8b8b8;\n --gray-200: #dedede;\n --gray-100: #e6e6e6;\n --gray-50: #f5f5f5;\n --white: #ffffff;\n }\n\n *, *::before, *::after { box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0; padding: 0; }\n\n html { font-size: 18px; background: var(--gray-100); }\n\n body {\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n color: var(--gray-900);\n background: var(--gray-100);\n min-height: 100vh;\n padding: 56px 16px;\n }\n\n .page {\n max-width: 800px;\n margin: 0 auto;\n background: var(--white);\n box-shadow: 0 2px 48px rgba(0,0,0,0.11), 0 1px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.07);\n }\n\n .top-rule { height: 4px; background: var(--black); }\n .top-rule-thin { height: 1px; background: var(--gray-300); margin-top: 3px; }\n\n \/* \u2500\u2500 Masthead \u2500\u2500 *\/\n .masthead {\n padding: 48px 72px 40px;\n text-align: center;\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n }\n\n .section-label {\n display: block;\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.60rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.38em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n margin-bottom: 26px;\n }\n\n h1.headline {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: clamp(2.1rem, 5vw, 3.4rem);\n font-weight: 900;\n line-height: 1.15;\n color: var(--black);\n letter-spacing: -0.015em;\n margin-bottom: 24px;\n }\n\n .deck {\n font-family: 'Cormorant Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-style: italic;\n font-size: 1.18rem;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n line-height: 1.65;\n max-width: 560px;\n margin: 0 auto 30px;\n }\n\n .meta-row {\n display: flex;\n align-items: center;\n justify-content: center;\n gap: 16px;\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.62rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.22em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n }\n\n \/* \u2500\u2500 Article body \u2500\u2500 *\/\n .article-body { padding: 56px 72px 80px; }\n\n .drop-cap::first-letter {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 5.2rem;\n font-weight: 900;\n line-height: 0.78;\n float: left;\n margin-right: 10px;\n margin-top: 6px;\n color: var(--black);\n }\n\n .article-body p {\n font-size: 1.02rem;\n line-height: 1.95;\n color: #252525;\n margin-bottom: 1.5em;\n text-align: justify;\n hyphens: auto;\n }\n\n .article-body h2 {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.55rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n color: var(--black);\n margin: 3.2em 0 0.9em;\n padding-bottom: 0.55em;\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n line-height: 1.25;\n }\n\n .article-body h3 {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.2rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--gray-900);\n margin: 2.8em 0 0.8em;\n }\n\n .article-body hr {\n border: none;\n border-top: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n margin: 3em auto;\n width: 72%;\n }\n\n .article-body ul {\n list-style: none;\n margin: 1.4em 0 1.8em 0;\n padding: 0;\n border-left: 2px solid var(--gray-200);\n padding-left: 24px;\n }\n\n .article-body ul li {\n font-size: 1rem;\n line-height: 1.85;\n color: #252525;\n margin-bottom: 1em;\n position: relative;\n }\n\n .article-body ul li::before {\n content: '\u2014';\n position: absolute;\n left: -28px;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n font-weight: 300;\n }\n\n .article-body strong { font-weight: 600; color: var(--black); }\n .article-body em { font-style: italic; color: var(--gray-700); }\n\n .pull-quote {\n border-top: 2px solid var(--black);\n border-bottom: 1px solid var(--gray-300);\n margin: 3em 0;\n padding: 1.6em 0 1.4em;\n text-align: center;\n }\n .pull-quote p {\n font-family: 'Playfair Display', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 1.32rem;\n font-weight: 700;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--black);\n line-height: 1.5;\n margin: 0 !important;\n text-align: center !important;\n }\n\n .article-body blockquote {\n border-left: 3px solid var(--gray-300);\n margin: 2.5em 0;\n padding: 0.6em 0 0.6em 1.6em;\n font-style: italic;\n color: var(--gray-500);\n font-size: 1.04rem;\n line-height: 1.8;\n }\n\n .end-mark {\n text-align: center;\n margin-top: 3.5em;\n padding-top: 2em;\n border-top: 1px solid var(--gray-200);\n font-family: 'EB Garamond', Georgia, serif;\n font-size: 0.64rem;\n letter-spacing: 0.32em;\n text-transform: uppercase;\n color: var(--gray-300);\n }\n\n .bottom-rule { height: 1px; background: var(--gray-300); }\n .bottom-rule-thick { height: 3px; background: var(--black); margin-top: 2px; }\n\n @media (max-width: 640px) {\n body { padding: 0; }\n .masthead { padding: 32px 24px 28px; }\n .article-body { padding: 36px 24px 60px; }\n .drop-cap::first-letter { font-size: 3.8rem; }\n }\n<\/style>\n<\/head>\n<body>\n<article class=\"page\">\n\n <div class=\"top-rule\"><\/div>\n <div class=\"top-rule-thin\"><\/div>\n\n <header class=\"masthead\">\n Phi\u00adlos\u00ado\u00adphy \u00b7 Epis\u00adte\u00admol\u00ado\u00adgy \u00b7 Log\u00adic<\/span>\n <h1 class=\"headline\">The Case Against Epistemic Relativism<\/h1>\n On the Dif\u00adfer\u00adence Between Per\u00adcep\u00adtion and Real\u00adi\u00adty<\/p>\n <div class=\"meta-row\">\n Inquiry<\/span>\n \u00b7<\/span>\n Phi\u00adlos\u00ado\u00adphy of Knowl\u00adedge<\/span>\n <\/div>\n <\/header>\n\n <div class=\"article-body\">\n\n It is often said that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive and not absolute. But does any\u00adone still believe such seem\u00ading\u00adly per\u00adsua\u00adsive sophistry?<\/p>\n\n Just because some\u00adthing appears per\u00adsua\u00adsive doesn\u2019t mean it is log\u00adi\u00adcal. This gap simul\u00adta\u00adne\u00adous\u00adly mas\u00adsive and hid\u00adden is the hid\u00ading place where the com\u00adpo\u00adnents of mis\u00adun\u00adder\u00adstand\u00ading lurk all around us.<\/p>\n\n Before we dive into the details, here are three quick exam\u00adples to clar\u00adi\u00adfy the idea from the start:<\/p>\n\n <ul>\n <li>The tem\u00adper\u00ada\u00adture of water at 20\u00b0C<\/strong> does not change but some\u00adone com\u00ading out of the desert finds it cold, while some\u00adone com\u00ading out of the snow finds it warm. The truth did not move the ref\u00ader\u00adence point moved.<\/li>\n <li>Your weight on a scale is a sin\u00adgle num\u00adber, but peo\u00adple dif\u00adfer in describ\u00ading you: fat, thin, or accept\u00adable. The num\u00adber did not change; the stan\u00addards did.<\/li>\n <li>Psy\u00adcho\u00adlog\u00adi\u00adcal pain, for exam\u00adple, has no uni\u00adfied unit of mea\u00adsure\u00adment, but it exists, it is real, and it is absolute in its exis\u00adtence, even if every human dif\u00adfers in defin\u00ading it.<\/li>\n <\/ul>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Hidden Gap<\/h2>\n\n This idea is often raised in argu\u00adments, like when some\u00adone says: \u201cTruth is not absolute because we live in a mov\u00ading world, not a sta\u00adt\u00adic one.\u201d<\/p>\n\n This sounds very beau\u00adti\u00adful and emo\u00adtion\u00adal, and it seems con\u00advinc\u00ading because it con\u00adtains a pow\u00ader\u00adful state\u00adment: that the world is chang\u00ading and not fixed.<\/p>\n\n How\u00adev\u00ader, even if this state\u00adment is true, it does not log\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly fol\u00adlow that the entire sen\u00adtence is cor\u00adrect.<\/p>\n\n It is like some\u00adone say\u00ading: \u201cThe col\u00ador of the sea is not real because it mere\u00adly reflects the col\u00ador of the sky.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Okay, I don\u2019t dis\u00adagree with this state\u00adment, it is beau\u00adti\u00adful, pow\u00ader\u00adful, and very per\u00adsua\u00adsive. Any\u00adone who dis\u00adagrees with it seems to know noth\u00ading about nat\u00adur\u00adal sci\u00adences.<\/p>\n\n But it con\u00adtains a log\u00adi\u00adcal gap.<\/p>\n\n Think about it: a liq\u00aduid could be blue, we place it in a pool with blue tiles, or use water with blue dye, out in the open air and using lit\u00ader\u00adal\u00adly the same way of think\u00ading, accord\u00ading to the pre\u00advi\u00adous prin\u00adci\u00adple: its col\u00ador is not blue, but rather it reflects the col\u00ador of the sky. \n Same prin\u00adci\u00adple, same result. \n Do you see where the decep\u00adtion lies?<\/p>\n\n The prin\u00adci\u00adple stat\u00ading \u201cThe sea reflects the sky, there\u00adfore its col\u00ador is not real\u201d is par\u00adtial\u00adly true in the case of the sea (though the sky itself appears blue due to the scat\u00adter\u00ading of sun\u00adlight in the atmosphere;Rayleigh scattering);but it is not a uni\u00adver\u00adsal law to be gen\u00ader\u00adal\u00adized to every\u00adthing that is liq\u00aduid and blue. When treat\u00aded as an absolute truth, it col\u00adlaps\u00ades at the first real test.<\/p>\n\n I said at the begin\u00adning that it is a hid\u00adden gap. If you look close\u00adly, you will find it in many things that seem<\/em>\u2026 seem or appear per\u00adsua\u00adsive. \n Even though it is by no means a require\u00adment that every\u00adthing per\u00adsua\u00adsive is the absolute truth; Incom\u00adplete\u00adness The\u00ado\u00adrems demon\u00adstrate this as well.<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Number from Every Angle<\/h2>\n\n For exam\u00adple: the num\u00adber 7<\/strong> in Hindi;as it is some\u00adtimes writ\u00adten in Ara\u00adbic (V<\/em>).<\/p>\n\n One per\u00adson may see it from a cer\u00adtain angle as indeed being the num\u00adber 7<\/strong>. \n Anoth\u00ader may see it from the oppo\u00adsite angle as its inverse;the num\u00adber 8<\/strong> (\u039b<\/em>). \n A third per\u00adson might see it from a mid\u00addle angle;as the num\u00adber 2<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n They might argue that this is clear evi\u00addence that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive depend\u00ading on the angle from which you view the sub\u00adject.<\/p>\n\n Okay, wait.<\/p>\n\n The abstract truth, and if we want to be pre\u00adcise, no one knows the \u201cthing-in-itself\u201d exactly;is that this is a numer\u00adi\u00adcal enti\u00adty: with a cer\u00adtain num\u00adber of sides, a cer\u00adtain struc\u00adture, and a cer\u00adtain num\u00adber of angles.<\/p>\n\n But things got mixed up, and the con\u00adcept of truth became: \u201cSince it depends on our under\u00adstand\u00ading of it, it is rel\u00ada\u00adtive.\u201d<\/p>\n\n You see it this way but truth in itself is not forced to sub\u00admit to the laws of your mind, which already sub\u00admit to the laws of the sens\u00ades, time, space, and the laws of your beliefs.<\/p>\n\n A fourth per\u00adson might see it as noth\u00ading more than a boomerang, that wood\u00aden stick that flies and returns and they can\u00adnot be blamed, that is their angle.<\/p>\n\n But the truth as the mind sees it is not the truth itself. This is anoth\u00ader very deep sub\u00adject addressed by great philoso\u00adphers, such as Kant.<\/p>\n\n Rather, it is a point of view, or in anoth\u00ader term: an angle of vision. I do not know why the name \u201ctruth\u201d became com\u00admon\u00adly attached to it.<\/p>\n\n In oth\u00ader words: it seems per\u00adsua\u00adsive that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive, but they for\u00adgot to add: \u201caccord\u00ading to our point of view.\u201d<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Rose<\/h2>\n\n The sun, from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of one per\u00adson, is fire; from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of a pagan, it is a god, and from the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of a physi\u00adcist, it is a ther\u00admonu\u00adclear reac\u00adtion. Will the sun be affect\u00aded by our point of view of it?<\/p>\n\n And the rose;let\u2019s take the Damask rose, famous for its dense petals and soft tex\u00adture, the very one from which rose oil is extracted;this rose:<\/p>\n\n From a child\u2019s per\u00adspec\u00adtive: a beau\u00adti\u00adful shape. This does not mean his words rep\u00adre\u00adsent the absolute truth. He is talk\u00ading about a prop\u00ader\u00adty, not the essence.<\/p>\n\n From the per\u00adspec\u00adtive of lovers: a sym\u00adbol of love. This does not mean it is an absolute truth in itself. They, too, are talk\u00ading about a prop\u00ader\u00adty, not the essence.<\/p>\n\n From a scientist\u2019s per\u00adspec\u00adtive: it is a com\u00adplex com\u00adpo\u00adsi\u00adtion of organ\u00adic acids, amine groups, and cel\u00adlu\u00adlose chains. Pig\u00adments like antho\u00adcyanins give it its col\u00ador, and volatile oils give it its fra\u00adgrance. But even this is an inven\u00adto\u00adry of the char\u00adac\u00adter\u00adis\u00adtics of its inter\u00adac\u00adtion with our tools, not a grasp of the essence of the rose in itself.<\/p>\n\n This does not mean that the con\u00adcept and essence of the rose\u2026 in the sense of being a rose, will sub\u00admit to the con\u00adcept of lovers or the scientist\u2019s method\u00adol\u00ado\u00adgy.<\/p>\n\n Rather, in its essence, it is: \u201ca cer\u00adtain being.\u201d We are still dis\u00adcov\u00ader\u00ading things in it; mean\u00ading we haven\u2019t actu\u00adal\u00adly reached its true real\u00adi\u00adty.<\/p>\n\n The rose, as it tru\u00adly is, might be some\u00adthing else entire\u00adly that reflects all these \u201crosy\u201d char\u00adac\u00adter\u00adis\u00adtics. \n It might be a low\u00ader rank of anoth\u00ader, high\u00ader mod\u00adel of a rose. \n And it might be\u2026 \n And it might be\u2026<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n Let\u2019s stay with the same exam\u00adple for a moment.<\/p>\n\n The Damask rose feels soft to you. But that does not mean it is an absolute truth that it is soft.<\/p>\n\n Does a hedge\u00adhog feel it the same way?<\/p>\n\n Or is there an exter\u00adnal fac\u00adtor affect\u00ading your sen\u00adsa\u00adtion this way;a fac\u00adtor that has noth\u00ading to do with the rose at all;such as the struc\u00adture of your nerves that sense touch, or the hid\u00adden oils in the fin\u00adgers that leave prints on sur\u00adfaces? Do these inter\u00adact with the prop\u00ader\u00adty of fric\u00adtion to give the rose this tac\u00adtile def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion spe\u00adcif\u00adic to us as humans: \u201cits tex\u00adture is soft\u201d?<\/p>\n\n Is the rose, in its absolute truth, real\u00adly like this?<\/p>\n\n Well, what about a blind per\u00adson who has nev\u00ader seen a rose in their life;do they see it as the same thing?<\/p>\n\n What if we were all blind? Would our con\u00adcept of the rose change?<\/p>\n\n What I want to pro\u00adpose regard\u00ading this exam\u00adple is: we do not know the absolute truth of the rose. That is, its pure secret;its essence as it is.<\/p>\n\n Some\u00adone might argue: \u201cIt\u2019s a rose, man; sure\u00adly sci\u00aden\u00adtists know its absolute truth.\u201d<\/p>\n\n Okay;has research in this branch of botany stopped? Have they fin\u00adished the cur\u00adricu\u00adlum? Of course not. At least dur\u00ading this peri\u00adod, I haven\u2019t found any pru\u00addent researcher say\u00ading they know every\u00adthing per\u00adfect\u00adly about the sci\u00adence of flow\u00aders. In fact, we enter anoth\u00ader maze: what does \u201cevery\u00adthing\u201d mean?<\/p>\n\n But the big\u00adger maze is: what is the absolute truth of the rose?<\/p>\n\n Since these are mazes, and the human brain loves shortcuts;they take a mas\u00adsive short\u00adcut and say, \u201cTruth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive,\u201d and they con\u00advince them\u00adselves of that. When they see a large num\u00adber of peo\u00adple con\u00advinced of the same thing, they think it is real\u00adi\u00adty and truth.<\/p>\n\n Have you ever asked in the world of bees about the nature of the rose to them? Should we take their def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtion, since they are more deeply immersed in the world of flow\u00aders than most humans? Even though their sens\u00ades are dif\u00adfer\u00adent and their per\u00adcep\u00adtion is dif\u00adfer\u00adent?<\/p>\n\n For\u00adgive the maze and the great pres\u00adsure in a mas\u00adsive field of epis\u00adte\u00admol\u00ado\u00adgy.<\/p>\n\n What I want to say is: even the rose, we do not know its absolute truth. Rather, we see it through the lens of emo\u00adtions if we are lovers, or through the lens of the sens\u00ades if we are just passers\u00adby on the road, or from a pure\u00adly mate\u00adr\u00adi\u00adal aspect if we see it from a scientist\u2019s point of view.<\/p>\n\n This does not mean it is forced to sub\u00admit to our sen\u00adso\u00adry sys\u00adtem and our men\u00adtal\u00adi\u00adty. Because if it were forced;quite simply;magic would be real, and we would change things just by look\u00ading at them or by our mere desire. But things do not work with such fan\u00adta\u00adsy.<\/p>\n\n <hr>\n\n <h2>The Object in the Pocket<\/h2>\n\nImag\u00adine you are sit\u00adting at a lunch table, hav\u00ading just met your girl\u00adfriend and her friend. In your pock\u00adet: a small, red, rough-tex\u00adtured octag\u00ado\u00adnal object.<\/p>\n\nYour girl\u00adfriend notices the strange bulge. Not know\u00ading what it is, she decides you are sim\u00adply eccen\u00adtric \u2014 the kind of per\u00adson who car\u00adries odd lit\u00adtle things around for no good rea\u00adson. And that, frankly, will not help your case.<\/p>\n\nHer friend, who has just been served a large burg\u00ader, glances at the shape in your pock\u00adet mid-bite. Some\u00adthing about the size and the moment makes her won\u00adder, absurd\u00adly, whether you are hid\u00ading food in there. That also will not help your case.<\/p>\n\nWhen lunch ends and you all stand to leave, you walk a lit\u00adtle too quick\u00adly behind them. A secu\u00adri\u00adty guard near\u00adby \u2014 the type who has not yet proved him\u00adself and is qui\u00adet\u00adly look\u00ading for the chance \u2014 notices your hur\u00adried step and the pro\u00adtru\u00adsion in your pock\u00adet. To him, it is nei\u00adther a trin\u00adket nor a snack. It is some\u00adthing to be sus\u00adpi\u00adcious of.<\/p>\n\nThree peo\u00adple. Three entire\u00adly dif\u00adfer\u00adent sto\u00adries. And yet the object did not move, did not change, did not con\u00adsult anyone\u2019s mood or hunger or sus\u00adpi\u00adcion before decid\u00ading what it was. It remained: a rough, red octa\u00adgon.<\/p>\n\nThis is where some draw the wrong con\u00adclu\u00adsion: \u201cEvery\u00adone saw it dif\u00adfer\u00adent\u00adly, there\u00adfore truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive.\u201d But what actu\u00adal\u00adly shift\u00aded was not the truth. It was the lens<\/em>. The plu\u00adral\u00adi\u00adty of per\u00adspec\u00adtives only proves that per\u00adcep\u00adtion is per\u00adson\u00adal, not that the object bent itself to accom\u00admo\u00addate each view\u00ader.<\/p>\n\nMis\u00adtak\u00ading the lens for the land\u00adscape is the old\u00adest error in this argu\u00adment.<\/p>\n\n\n <h2>Light;And What It Hides About Absolute Truth<\/h2>\n\n Pro\u00adpo\u00adnents of mod\u00adern physics might not like what I\u2019m say\u00ading. Some have become pre\u00adoc\u00adcu\u00adpied with Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s cat and wave the\u00ado\u00adry, think\u00ading that the strange behav\u00adiors of light in the dou\u00adble-slit exper\u00adi\u00adment are the great\u00adest evi\u00addence that truth is lost or relative;some even went so far as to say that obser\u00adva\u00adtion itself inter\u00advenes in the for\u00adma\u00adtion of truth, and that truth does not exist inde\u00adpen\u00addent of the observ\u00ader.<\/p>\n\n But hold on.<\/p>\n\n When sci\u00aden\u00adtists say that light is a wave and a par\u00adti\u00adcle at the same time;they are not say\u00ading its truth is lost or fluc\u00adtu\u00adat\u00ading. They are say\u00ading exact\u00adly the oppo\u00adsite: the nature of this enti\u00adty is like this, a con\u00adstant law, encom\u00adpass\u00ading both states togeth\u00ader.<\/p>\n\n Let me bring the idea clos\u00ader in a dif\u00adfer\u00adent way.<\/p>\n\n In log\u00adic, when we say: If such and such, then the result is such and such<\/em>;we are not talk\u00ading about the volatil\u00adi\u00adty of truth, but about the pre\u00adci\u00adsion of its sys\u00adtem. The func\u00adtion f<\/em> that links the con\u00addi\u00adtion to the result is the absolute truth, not the result alone. If the obser\u00adva\u00adtion is of a cer\u00adtain type, light behaves as a wave. If the obser\u00adva\u00adtion is of anoth\u00ader type, it behaves as a par\u00adti\u00adcle. The law gov\u00adern\u00ading this trans\u00adfor\u00adma\u00adtion does not change;it is rig\u00ador\u00adous, con\u00adstant, and incred\u00adi\u00adbly pre\u00adcise. What changes is x<\/em>;the con\u00addi\u00adtion we input. And the con\u00addi\u00adtion itself is part of the equa\u00adtion, not out\u00adside of it.<\/p>\n\n This is regard\u00adless of the human emo\u00adtion\u00adal shock from the con\u00addi\u00adtion of chang\u00ading states\u2026 as it appears that the pho\u00adton has con\u00adscious\u00adness. This is what appears, and I will not delve here into the shock of state change and how it\u2019s pos\u00adsi\u00adble that a pho\u00adton, when sub\u00adject\u00aded to obser\u00adva\u00adtion, knows it is being observed and changes its behav\u00adior\u2026 that is not our top\u00adic here. Also, this shock was a large cloud for them that made them hal\u00adlu\u00adci\u00adnate log\u00adic left and right and say truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive; some even went fur\u00adther and said there is no truth at all and every\u00adthing we know is an illu\u00adsion. Regard\u00adless, let\u2019s return to the ground of our sub\u00adject.<\/p>\n\n In oth\u00ader words:<\/p>\n\n In log\u00adic, there is a mas\u00adsive dif\u00adfer\u00adence between \u201csim\u00adple truth\u201d and \u201cthe truth of con\u00addi\u00adtion and result\u201d (If \u2026 Then<\/em>). The absolute truth here is not the \u201cpar\u00adti\u00adcle\u201d in iso\u00adla\u00adtion, nor is it the \u201cwave\u201d in iso\u00adla\u00adtion; rather, it is the uni\u00adver\u00adsal law that gov\u00aderns the rela\u00adtion\u00adship between the observ\u00ader and the observed. If the cos\u00admic rule says: (If mea\u00adsure\u00adment con\u00adtext \u201cA\u201d exists, then light will behave with behav\u00adior \u201cB\u201d), then this rule itself is an absolute truth, con\u00adstant, and not sub\u00adject to human whims.<\/p>\n\n \u201cObser\u00adva\u00adtion\u201d does not cre\u00adate truth from noth\u00ading; it is an \u201cinput\u201d in a mighty cos\u00admic equa\u00adtion. Just as the boil\u00ading point of water is not a fixed num\u00adber (100<\/strong>) in all con\u00addi\u00adtions, but rather \u201ca val\u00adue that fol\u00adlows the state of pres\u00adsure.\u201d Does the boil\u00ading of water at 70<\/strong> degrees atop Mount Ever\u00adest mean that truth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive? Absolute\u00adly not! It means that the absolute truth is the \u201cfixed math\u00ade\u00admat\u00adi\u00adcal rela\u00adtion\u00adship between heat and pres\u00adsure.\u201d<\/p>\n\n We are the ones who fall into the trap of \u201crel\u00ada\u00adtiv\u00adi\u00adty\u201d when we frag\u00adment truth and try to cram the \u201cwhole\u201d into the \u201cpart.\u201d We are like some\u00adone look\u00ading at a cylin\u00adder from the side and see\u00ading a rec\u00adtan\u00adgle, then look\u00ading at it from the base and see\u00ading a cir\u00adcle; the rec\u00adtan\u00adgle is real, and the cir\u00adcle is real, but the tran\u00adscen\u00addent absolute truth is the \u201ccylin\u00adder\u201d that com\u00adbined the two oppo\u00adsites in its sin\u00adgle essence, and remained as it is while our angles of vision danced around it.<\/p>\n\n What some call \u201crel\u00ada\u00adtiv\u00adi\u00adty\u201d is, in real\u00adi\u00adty, a \u201cdefi\u00adcien\u00adcy in the tools of com\u00adpre\u00adhen\u00adsion.\u201d Exis\u00adtence does not change just by us look\u00ading at it; rather, our look\u00ading at it is what can\u00adnot cap\u00adture more than one \u201cfre\u00adquen\u00adcy\u201d from the absolute sym\u00adpho\u00adny of exis\u00adtence. The \u201cstate\u201d is what changes, but the \u201clog\u00adi\u00adcal law\u201d that gov\u00aderns that state remains absolute, rig\u00ador\u00adous, and indif\u00adfer\u00adent to our con\u00adscious\u00adness.<\/p>\n\n <h3>Conclusion<\/h3>\n\n After all these mazes from the reflec\u00adtion of the sea to the puz\u00adzle of the num\u00adber 7<\/strong>, and from the dis\u00adsec\u00adtion of the rose to the com\u00adplex\u00adi\u00adties of quantum;we reach the final cer\u00adtain\u00adty: the error is not that our under\u00adstand\u00ading is rel\u00ada\u00adtive, for that is the tax of our exis\u00adtence with\u00adin time and space; the fatal error is the \u201cintel\u00adlec\u00adtu\u00adal lazi\u00adness\u201d that delet\u00aded half the sen\u00adtence and said \u201ctruth is rel\u00ada\u00adtive,\u201d for\u00adget\u00adting to com\u00adplete it: \u201caccord\u00ading to the nar\u00adrow\u00adness of our eyes.\u201d<\/p>\n\n We have con\u00adfused the \u201cthing-in-itself\u201d with \u201cthe inter\u00adac\u00adtion of our sens\u00ades with the thing.\u201d The rose does not turn to notice our aes\u00adthet\u00adic or chem\u00adi\u00adcal def\u00adi\u00adn\u00adi\u00adtions, the num\u00adber does not care who sees it as sev\u00aden or eight or a wood\u00aden stick, and light does not ask per\u00admis\u00adsion from our con\u00adscious\u00adness before prac\u00adtic\u00ading its dual nature accord\u00ading to its absolute laws.<\/p>\n\n <div class=\"pull-quote\">\n Truth is like the sun, shin\u00ading in the heart of exis\u00adtence; it is not harmed that we see it some\u00adtimes behind a cloud, or feel it some\u00adtimes as heat and some\u00adtimes as light, or that the blind per\u00adson sees it as noth\u00ading\u00adness.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n\n For exam\u00adple: when I wake up and don\u2019t drink cof\u00adfee, I am in a bad mood. If I drink it, my mood is bet\u00adter. Some\u00adone might say: \u201cThere\u00adfore, your mood is rel\u00ada\u00adtive and chang\u00ading.\u201d But it is more accu\u00adrate to say: \u201cThere\u00adfore, there is a fixed law that gov\u00aderns your mood accord\u00ading to the con\u00addi\u00adtion.\u201d The absolute truth here is not \u201cirri\u00adtabil\u00adi\u00adty,\u201d nor \u201ccheerfulness\u201d;it is the rela\u00adtion\u00adship between the cof\u00adfee and the state.<\/p>\n\n We are the ones who fail to see the full pic\u00adture all at once;so we see a shard and call it truth, we see a state and call it the whole truth, and we see that states mul\u00adti\u00adply so we call truth rel\u00ada\u00adtive. But the absolute truth is the law that unites all states, not any sin\u00adgle state.<\/p>\n\n Absolute truth reminds me of Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s say\u00ading at the end of his life when he said that all he dis\u00adcov\u00adered and all he did, he still felt like a small child gath\u00ader\u00ading shells from the seashore\u2026 what then of the ocean itself?<\/p>\n\n <blockquote>\n \u201cI do not claim to pos\u00adsess the absolute truth, but I refute the flim\u00adsy evi\u00addence used to deny its exis\u00adtence.\u201d\n <\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n <div class=\"end-mark\">\u2726 The End \u2726<\/div>\n\n <\/div>\n\n <div class=\"bottom-rule\"><\/div>\n <div class=\"bottom-rule-thick\"><\/div>\n\n<\/article>\n<\/body>\n<\/html>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Is truth tru\u00adly rel\u00ada\u00adtive, or are we sim\u00adply vic\u00adtims of \u2018intel\u00adlec\u00adtu\u00adal lazi\u00adness\u2019? From the dual\u00adi\u00adty of light to the shift\u00ading per\u00adspec\u00adtives on a sim\u00adple rose, this arti\u00adcle explores why our sub\u00adjec\u00adtive per\u00adcep\u00adtion doesn\u2019t change objec\u00adtive real\u00adi\u00adty. Dive into a rig\u00ador\u00adous cri\u00adtique of Epis\u00adtemic Rel\u00ada\u00adtivism and dis\u00adcov\u00ader the absolute laws that gov\u00adern our seem\u00ading\u00adly mov\u00ading world.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":720,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"pagelayer_contact_templates":[],"_pagelayer_content":"","_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[135,136],"tags":[140,137,139],"class_list":["post-703","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy","category-analytic-philosophy","tag-critical-thinking","tag-epistemic-relativism","tag-epistemology"],"blocksy_meta":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-scaled.jpg",2560,1440,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-150x150.jpg",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-300x169.jpg",300,169,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-768x432.jpg",768,432,true],"large":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-1024x576.jpg",1024,576,true],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-1536x864.jpg",1536,864,true],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-2048x1152.jpg",2048,1152,true],"trp-custom-language-flag":["https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/brendan-miranda-0K1C90geDao-unsplash-18x10.jpg",18,10,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"Ghassan Nabhan","author_link":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/author\/g21t5000\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Is truth truly relative, or are we simply victims of 'intellectual laziness'? From the duality of light to the shifting perspectives on a simple rose, this article explores why our subjective perception doesn't change objective reality. Dive into a rigorous critique of Epistemic Relativism and discover the absolute laws that govern our seemingly moving world.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":18,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":723,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions\/723"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/720"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ghassannabhan.com\/ar\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}