Philosophy
Interpretation involves more than just representing information. It is a process of communication that intends to reveal in depth meanings to the information. It is a communication tactic whereby data gets translated from a technical language to an easily understandable language. Interpretation requires one to be interactive with the audience and begins by passing information that will raise their curiosity to know more. Understanding how they learn things will help in interpreting to them in such a way that they will hardly forget. According to Veverka, in his paper concerning interpretation, people will appreciate interpretation more if it communicates to them on the basis of their daily lives.
Interpretations vary from culture to culture and for this reason; we may find ourselves with different meanings of the same object. These variations come about because of the aspect of perspective. Veverka continues that; perspective refers to the different approaches that people take regarding a similar idea or object. Relativists hold that all things get judged equally, regardless of being right or wrong. Their perspective is that there is no absolutism and that we cannot declare something as right or wrong. Such a perspective, therefore, makes concrete facts obsolete. Arguments for or against relativism and absolutism may never end because people have their point of view and will always justify their opinions.
The idea or practice of perspective is neither weak nor strong; not to say it is absolute, but it does provide different ways of approaching situations. For instance, if we did not look at things differently, we would not have innovative ideas that would make work easier. We would never have realized that using circular wheels rather than square ones would make movement more convenient. People would have never thought of using engines to create energy that would speed up motion; airplanes would never have existed had someone not thought of a safer way of crossing the large water bodies. All these observations prove to us that the notion of perception is there to stay.
Debate over “god’s eye-view” or an absolutist’s point of view has existed for a long time. Absolutism involves having inflexible facts; meaning that which one says is right remains so regardless of what others may think. Robbery or committing of any other crimes is wrong according to an absolutist. A relativist would differ, saying that the act has been done simply because the criminal had a need, thus, justifying that crime is not entirely wrong. It is quite contradictory because saying that some practices are neither good nor bad, but in reality they are actually good or bad, can bring about confusion.
Hilary Putnam does not believe in the existence of “god’s eye-view”, and says that if at all it does exist, we would not know or even visualize. He argues that the only points of view that exist are those of fellow human beings, and their perspective regarding different interests. He continues to justify his opinion by saying that he is not against the existence of reality. Rather he believes that people should understand the futility of stepping out of reality and perceive objects from an omniscient being’s point of view. In his argument, he tries to explain that practicality does exist, but the justification can only be from a “god’s eye-view” point. It is, therefore, unclear as to how true the realism is if we cannot perceive things from that point of view (Putnam 50).
“God’s eye-view” is the perspective that human beings tend to think would explain situations that surpass ordinary human understanding. It is necessary when an absolute statement requires capture regardless of any human judgment. It is, therefore, impossible to have such a point of view since all of us are human beings, and our perspectives vary. That means that according to the relativist, we are all equal and we cannot assume the viewpoint of a supreme being to pass judgment on other people. The same does not apply to an absolutist, but it is an ongoing argument.
Absolute truth refers to concrete facts, or information that are immune to alteration. It is absolute and remains as it is. Absolutism remains unaltered at all costs regardless of the impending consequences. When an argument arises regarding a certain topic, it means that the argument attempts to justify that topic to be right or wrong, moral or immoral. That means that whether it is either of the two, there is an absolute fact about it. Relativism provides a wide perspective or interpretation of an object and provides that everyone’s interpretation is equal; neither right not wrong.
The provision of equality in itself is absolute, meaning that relativism is an absolute in itself. Arguing about the relevance of relativity tries to prove how concrete the concept is. On moral absolutism, a philosopher by the name Kant believed that it was wrong to tell lies regardless of the situation. He believed in the truth, and even gave a scenario where he required the truth no matter the consequences. In his example, a victim hiding from a murderer should get exposed if the murderer asks whether you know the whereabouts of the victim. Telling the truth would mean putting the innocent soul in danger but again, moral absolutism according to Kant requires us to tell the truth.
Relativists do not believe in imposing morals on other people and neither do they expect any corrections when they do something that other people consider wrong. They feel justified to do whatever it is that they feel is right. However, human beings have emotions, and when offended, they will react. It is not logic to cane someone out of the blues and expect no reprimand, simply because you believe you have a justification. Even a relativist will not smile and thank the culprit for the “good” caning. That is to mean that pain is an absolute fact that causes a reaction and, therefore, absolutism exists. All this explains that indeed absolute truth is there, and that people can rationally and ethically claim to have the absolute truth about anything, whether scientific or religious.
People get guidance from a set of rules that govern our day to day activities and provide remedies to various issues. Without standards, I believe that the universe would be a chaotic place to be. According to relativism, there are no absolute standards simply because people are at liberty to do what they feel is right. They can commit crimes if it makes them happy. In reality, criminals are offenders of the law and are subject to punishment. Relativism tends to ignore the fact that standards are necessary for any society. It is the reason we have ruling systems, be it democratic, authoritarian, a monarchy or even traditional elders.
Absolute moral standards explain what is right and what is wrong. There exists many social evils that we must avoid by setting standards. A relativist may agree to the existence of absolute standards if the situation favors them. For instance, no one would be willing to be murdered; not even a relativist. Therefore, regardless of absolutism or relativism, standards are possible, and they do exist.
Works Cited
Putnam, Hilary. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Print.
Veverka, John A. What is Interpretation? An Overview of Interpretive Philosophy and Principles. 2007. Web. 8 October 2014. Retrieved from www.heritageinterp.com/whatis.htm
