Objectivism, the opposite extreme of Relativism

Fish are inedible, and there is nothing you can say or do to have me believe anything like the contrary. Am I wrong? Well, it seems people eat fish, so I guess I am wrong. Nevertheless, I very well may choose starvation instead of eating fish, despite the latter point. There are some who, in despising what relativism does, assert the opposite extreme (what we shall call "Objectivism"). However, this really creates the same general problem, placing objectivity where there is none is the same as inventing one’s own truth. The question remains what balance is there? To answer this question, we must clarify our question. Our question is fundamentally an epistemological one. How do we know what our perception of the truth and what is truth itself? Opinion and personal taste are valid independent of objective facts because they are formed of our subjectivity. But here is where the problem arises, when our fallenness is involved in forming our perspective on what is objective truth and when it is permissible to use our interior experience to form premises/conclusions of extrinsic phenomena. For example, what Therese of Lisieux may receive with a certain dimension of joy as an opportunity to love God and to be joined with Christ in His salvific immolation, another may be tempted to despair over. Trials are a fact of life, but it matters greatly whether we perceive them as God’s hatred of us who cannot seem to please Him or whether it is such an opportunity as stated above to grow and to show Him that we love Him in all things and not just happy feelings, and further, to participate in Christ's singular salvific sacrifice. You may notice that the difference between these two perspectives is largely subjective, but there is one that can be seen to be more helpful in its application and thus more true. It is worth concluding here that although the perception of objective truth is always a subjective enterprise, diligence fueled by a stubborn persistence, an understanding that objective truth does not change with one's emotional state (perception is separate from reality), and a healthy (not prideful) skepticism at appearances yields at least a balanced, amendable, and practical understanding of truth. Scientistism posits that science is the only field of study capable of this balanced approach to the perception of the truth. In contradiction of this, we entrust our hearts to a non-scientific understanding of other persons, and we act upon this perception all the time, i.e. without measuring something physical or numeral. This dynamic concerns every aspect of our lives in the context of marriage, and the effect of atheistic skepticism about sexuality has yielded its fruit in our culture, we see a very different world much more saturated by selfishness and despair than ever before. Reflecting on this reality one may conclude, it seems, that 1) our use of reason contradicts scientism here at least, and 2) that even if our conceptualization of the truth is acquired subjectively it can be evaluated objectively. This has implications for the relationship of faith to reason as well, which for a Catholic is always harmonious and noncontradictory.

First, let us consider Scientism. Without incorporating faith into the conversation yet, we can see that even if most things can be measured in some way, it is not practical to make practical conclusions, truths assumed in our actions, on only that which we are certain of. To be clear, faith is not, strictly speaking, making decisions without information we are certain of as Scientism defines it.[1] Faith does not incorporate a sensor and the resulting graph, it is true, however, this does not mean it is only an epistemological jump (blindly believing something is true without any premise at all). In every relationship, if we are to have peace and feel safe, we must conclude that the other person is not going to will our destruction. What do you use to measure that? Hopefully, not a probe. ;) Faith does not work any differently than that. None of creation rules out a transcendent God, Who is external to it. It is agreed that this is not enough to suppose there is one, but there are several ways of speaking about it that make it seem likely. However, it is not until one opens their heart and mind to the idea that they will be able to see that it is true. This does not happen from oblivion, but it is a conclusion that is as slowly and carefully as possible reached. It would never be as certain as determining the species of an apple by using DNA testing. Yet, there remains a certainty that can grow with the experience of that God. Given this and prior examples ad contra, it seems Scientism is not true. In this, we see that certainty can have gradience, which is how our perception of objective truth (e.g. whether God exists or doesn't) can be subjective. This is not saying the objective truth does not exist, nor does it claim that objective truth is equally self-evident to all.[1]

In conclusion, we cannot expect every opinion to have an objectively right or wrong dimension. Some people like fish even when I cannot fathom appreciating it in any sense. It does not make my opinion/taste/preference objectively wrong. However, being aware that perceiving universal truths is a subjective process in which we are prone to error allows us to be cautious about what truths are truly most worthy of proclaiming. It also affords us mercy with those we disagree with, even when we are concerned about where their beliefs may lead just as they are in our regard. There is something here too about being aware that even if we are tending in a good direction objectively, we can always refine our perspective by reevaluating it in light of new contexts, and sometimes in doing so we find that the viewpoint tending more toward the objective unity/harmony of truths and their corresponding goodness and beauty, is not the one you possess. Clearly, given that this remains to be a Catholic blog, my experience has been that whatever one may criticize the Church for, its actual teachings embrace both the compassionate and merciful side and the true/objective side of any issue. This seems to subsist in the minutiae as well as the worldview. Every time I consider, and do so genuinely and academically, the actual/properly understood Catholic position seems to subsist despite all others. Objectivism is not a proper response to relativism nor is it a truly Catholic/Christian understanding of the nature of our perception, even if it errors in a way closer to the truth. If we are to truly give relativism the grave it deserves, it is not enough to be contrarian, but Catholic if not only Christian.

FN:

1. This would be against prudence see CCC 1806
2. cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I-II, q. 94, a. 2, at New Advent, www.newadvent.org. on self-evident truths

Written by Carter Carruthers & also available soon at Missio Dei