Editing Relativism (section)

==Views==
===Philosophical===
====Ancient====

=====Sophism=====
[[Sophists]] are considered the founding fathers of relativism in [[Western philosophy]]. Elements of relativism emerged among the [[Sophist]]s in the 5th century [[Before Christ|BC]]. Notably, it was [[Protagoras]] who coined the phrase, "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not." The thinking of the Sophists is mainly known through their opponent, [[Plato]]. In a paraphrase from Plato's dialogue ''[[Theaetetus (dialogue)|Theaetetus]]'', Protagoras said: "What is true for you is true for you, and what is true for me is true for me."<ref name=socratesdialogue>
{{cite book | title=Scientific Inquiry: Applied to the Doctrine of Jesus Christ | author=Richard Austin Gudmundsen | page = 50 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3C-ZdOSwRJcC&q=Protagoras+%22what+is+true+for+you%22&pg=PA50
|year=2000 |publisher=Cedar Fort | access-date=2011-01-24 |isbn=978-1-55517-497-2}}
</ref><ref>
{{Cite book
| publisher = Barnes & Noble Publishing
| isbn = 978-1-56619-271-2
| last = Sahakian
| first = William S.
|author2=Mabel Lewis Sahakian
 | title = Ideas of the great philosophers
| page = 28
| year = 1993
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Vi7cQMw8SwYC&q=Protagoras+Plato+%22what+is+true+for+you%22&pg=PA28
| quote = What is true for you is true for you.
}}</ref><ref>
{{Cite book
| publisher = Schenkman Pub. Co.
| last = Sahakian
| first = W. S.
|author2=M. L. Sahakian
 | title = Realms of philosophy
| year = 1965
|page = 40
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=6FEYAAAAIAAJ
| access-date = 2011-01-24
}}</ref>

====Modern====
=====Bernard Crick=====
[[Bernard Crick]], a British political scientist and advocate of relativism, suggested in ''In Defence of Politics'' (1962) that moral conflict between people is inevitable. He thought that only [[ethics]] can resolve such conflict, and when that occurs in public it results in [[politics]]. Accordingly, Crick saw the process of [[dispute resolution]], [[harms reduction]], [[mediation]] or [[peacemaking]] as central to all of moral philosophy. He became an important influence on [[feminists]] and later on the [[Green movement|Greens]].

=====Paul Feyerabend=====
Philosopher of science [[Paul Feyerabend]] is often considered to be a relativist, although he denied being one.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=156973&sectioncode=39| title = Cooper, David E., "Voodoo and the monster of science", ''Times Higher Education'', 17 March 2000| date = 17 March 2000}}</ref>

Feyerabend argued that modern science suffers from being methodologically monistic (the belief that only a single methodology can produce [[scientific progress]]).<ref>Lloyd, Elisabeth. "Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism", ''Philosophy of Science'' 64, p. S397.</ref> Feyerabend summarises his case in ''[[Against Method]]'' with the phrase "anything goes".<ref>Feyerabend, ''Against Method'', 3rd ed., p. vii</ref>

:In an aphorism [Feyerabend] often repeated, "potentially every culture is all cultures". This is intended to convey that world views are not hermetically closed, since their leading concepts have an "ambiguity" - better, an open-endedness - which enables people from other cultures to engage with them. [...] It follows that relativism, understood as the doctrine that truth is relative to closed systems, can get no purchase. [...] For Feyerabend, both hermetic relativism and its absolutist rival [realism] serve, in their different ways, to "devalue human existence". The former encourages that unsavoury brand of political correctness which takes the refusal to criticise "other cultures" to the extreme of condoning murderous dictatorship and barbaric practices. The latter, especially in its favoured contemporary form of "scientific realism", with the excessive prestige it affords to the abstractions of "the monster 'science'", is in bed with a politics which likewise disdains variety, richness and everyday individuality - a politics which likewise "hides" its norms behind allegedly neutral facts, "blunts choices and imposes laws".<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=156973&sectioncode=39| title = Cooper, David E., "Voodoo and the monster of science," ''Times Higher Education'', 17 March 2000| date = 17 March 2000}}</ref>

=====Thomas Kuhn=====
[[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Thomas Kuhn]]'s philosophy of science, as expressed in ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', is often interpreted as relativistic. He claimed that, as well as progressing steadily and incrementally ("[[normal science]]"), science undergoes periodic revolutions or "[[paradigm shift]]s", leaving scientists working in different paradigms with difficulty in even communicating. Thus the truth of a claim, or the existence of a posited entity, is relative to the paradigm employed. However, it is not necessary for him to embrace relativism because every paradigm presupposes the prior, building upon itself through history and so on. This leads to there being a fundamental, incremental, and referential structure of development which is not relative but again, fundamental.

:From these remarks, one thing is however certain: Kuhn is not saying that incommensurable theories cannot be compared - what they can't be is compared in terms of a system of common measure. He very plainly says that they can be compared, and he reiterates this repeatedly in later work, in a (mostly in vain) effort to avert the crude and sometimes catastrophic misinterpretations he suffered from mainstream philosophers and post-modern relativists alike.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.uea.ac.uk/~j339/Kuhntogo.htm| title = Sharrock. W., Read R. ''Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolutions''}}</ref>

But Kuhn rejected the accusation of being a relativist later in his postscript:

:scientific development is ... a unidirectional and irreversible process. Later scientific theories are better than earlier ones for solving puzzles ... That is not a relativist's position, and it displays the sense in which I am a convinced believer in scientific progress.<ref>Kuhn (1962), ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', p. 206.</ref>

Some have argued that one can also read Kuhn's work as essentially positivist in its ontology: the revolutions he posits are epistemological, lurching toward a presumably 'better' understanding of an objective reality through the lens presented by the new paradigm. However, a number of passages in ''Structure'' do indeed appear to be distinctly relativist, and to directly challenge the notion of an objective reality and the ability of science to progress towards an ever-greater grasp of it, particularly through the process of paradigm change.

:In the sciences there need not be progress of another sort. We may, to be more precise, have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth.<ref>Kuhn, ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', p. 170.</ref>

:We are all deeply accustomed to seeing science as the one enterprise that draws constantly nearer to some goal set by nature in advance. But need there be any such goal? Can we not account for both science's existence and its success in terms of evolution from the community's state of knowledge at any given time? Does it really help to imagine that there is some one full, objective, true account of nature and that the proper measure of scientific achievement is the extent to which it brings us closer to that ultimate goal?<ref>Kuhn, ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', p. 171.</ref>

=====George Lakoff and Mark Johnson=====
[[George Lakoff]] and [[Mark Johnson (professor)|Mark Johnson]] define relativism in ''[[Metaphors We Live By]]'' as the rejection of both [[subjectivism]] and [[Metaphysical realism|metaphysical objectivism]] in order to focus on the relationship between them, i.e. the [[metaphors|metaphor]] by which we relate our current experience to our previous experience. In particular, Lakoff and Johnson characterize "objectivism" as a "[[straw man]]", and, to a lesser degree, criticize the views of [[Karl Popper]], [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]] and [[Aristotle]].{{Page needed|date=September 2010}}

===== Robert Nozick =====
In his book ''[[Invariances]]'', [[Robert Nozick]] expresses a complex set of theories about the absolute and the relative. He thinks the absolute/relative distinction should be recast in terms of an invariant/variant distinction, where there are many things a proposition can be invariant with regard to or vary with. He thinks it is coherent for truth to be relative, and speculates that it might vary with time. He thinks necessity is an unobtainable notion, but can be approximated by robust invariance across a variety of conditions—although we can never identify a proposition that is invariant with regard to everything. Finally, he is not particularly warm to one of the most famous forms of relativism, [[moral relativism]], preferring an evolutionary account.

=====Joseph Margolis=====
[[Joseph Margolis]] advocates a view he calls "robust relativism" and defends it in his books ''Historied Thought, Constructed World'', Chapter 4 (California, 1995) and ''The Truth about Relativism'' (Blackwell, 1991). He opens his account by stating that our logics should depend on what we take to be the nature of the sphere to which we wish to apply our logics. Holding that there can be no distinctions which are not "privileged" between the [[alethic possibility|alethic]], the [[ontic]], and the [[epistemic]], he maintains that a [[many-valued logic]] just might be the most apt for [[aesthetics]] or [[history]] since, because in these practices, we are loath to hold to simple [[Principle of bivalence|binary logic]]; and he also holds that many-valued logic is relativistic. (This is perhaps an unusual definition of "relativistic". Compare with his comments on "relationism".) To say that "True" and "False" are mutually exclusive and exhaustive judgements on ''[[Hamlet]]'', for instance, really does seem absurd. A many-valued logic{{mdash}}with its values "apt", "reasonable", "likely", and so on{{mdash}}seems intuitively more applicable to interpreting ''Hamlet''. Where apparent contradictions arise between such interpretations, we might call the interpretations "incongruent", rather than dubbing either of them "false", because using many-valued logic implies that a measured value is a mixture of two extreme possibilities. Using the subset of many-valued logic, [[fuzzy logic]], it can be said that various interpretations can be represented by membership in more than one possible truth set simultaneously. Fuzzy logic is therefore probably the best mathematical structure for understanding "robust relativism" and has been interpreted by [[Bart Kosko]] as philosophically being related to Zen Buddhism.

It was [[Aristotle]] who held that relativism implies that we should, sticking with appearances only, end up contradicting ourselves somewhere if we could apply all attributes to all ''ousiai'' ([[being]]s). Aristotle, however, made non-contradiction dependent upon his [[essentialism]]. If his essentialism is false, then so too is his ground for disallowing relativism. (Subsequent philosophers have found other reasons for supporting the principle of non-contradiction.){{clarify|date=December 2012}}

Beginning with [[Protagoras]] and invoking [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], Margolis shows that the historic struggle to discredit relativism is an attempt to impose an unexamined belief in the world's essentially rigid rule-like nature. Plato and Aristotle merely attacked "relationalism"{{mdash}}the doctrine of true for l or true for k, and the like, where l and k are different speakers or different worlds{{mdash}}or something similar (most philosophers would call this position "relativism"). For Margolis, "true" means true; that is, the alethic use of "true" remains untouched. However, in real world contexts, and context is ubiquitous in the real world, we must apply truth values. Here, in epistemic terms, we might ''tout court'' retire "true" as an evaluation and keep "false". The rest of our value-judgements could be graded from "extremely plausible" down to "false". Judgements which on a bivalent logic would be incompatible or contradictory are further seen as "incongruent", although one may well have more weight than the other. In short, relativistic logic is not, or need not be, the bugbear it is often presented to be. It may simply be the best type of logic to apply to certain very uncertain spheres of real experiences in the world (although some sort of logic needs to be applied in order to make that judgement). Those who swear by [[bivalent logic]] might simply be the ultimate keepers of the great fear of the flux.{{Citation needed|date=July 2011}}

=====Richard Rorty=====
Philosopher [[Richard Rorty]] has a somewhat [[paradox]]ical role in the debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views by many commentators, but has always denied that relativism applies to much anybody, being nothing more than a Platonic scarecrow. Rorty claims, rather, that he is a [[pragmatism|pragmatist]], and that to construe pragmatism as relativism is to [[beg the question]].

:'"Relativism" is the traditional epithet applied to pragmatism by realists'<ref>Rorty, R. ''Consequences of Pragmatism''</ref>

:'"Relativism" is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called 'relativists' are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought.'<ref>Richard Rorty, ''Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism''</ref>

:'In short, my strategy for escaping the self-referential difficulties into which "the Relativist" keeps getting himself is to move everything over from epistemology and metaphysics into cultural politics, from claims to knowledge and appeals to self-evidence to suggestions about what we should try.'<ref>Rorty, R. ''Hilary Putnam and the Relativist Menace''</ref>

Rorty takes a [[Deflationary theory of truth|deflationary]] attitude to [[truth]], believing there is nothing of interest to be said about truth in general, including the contention that it is generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of [[Theory of justification|warrant]] or justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of truth, and that justification ''is'' relative; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty.

In ''[[Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity]]'' he argues that the debate between so-called relativists and so-called objectivists is beside the point because they do not have enough premises in common for either side to prove anything to the other.

===== Nalin de Silva =====
In his book ''Mage Lokaya'' (My World), 1986, [[Nalin de Silva]] criticized the basis of the established western system of knowledge, and its propagation, which he refers as "domination throughout the world".He explained in this book that mind independent reality is impossible and knowledge is not found but constructed. Further he has introduced and developed the concept of "Constructive Relativism" as the basis on which knowledge is constructed relative to the sense organs, culture and the mind completely based on [[Avidyā (Buddhism)|Avidya]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://repository.kln.ac.lk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5923/1/109.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200129072609/http://repository.kln.ac.lk/jspui/bitstream/123456789/5923/1/109.pdf |archive-date=2020-01-29 |url-status=live|title=Constructive Relativism}}</ref>

====Postmodernism<!--'Postmodern relativism' redirects here-->====
The term "relativism" often comes up in debates over [[postmodernism]], [[poststructuralism]] and [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]]. Critics of these perspectives often identify advocates with the label "relativism". For example, the [[Sapir–Whorf hypothesis]] is often considered a relativist view because it posits that linguistic categories and structures shape the way people view the world. [[Stanley Fish]] has defended postmodernism and relativism.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/Fish.pdf ''Don't Blame Relativism''] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130521230254/http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/rcq/Fish.pdf |date=2013-05-21 }} as "serious thought"</ref>

These perspectives do not strictly count as relativist in the philosophical sense, because they express agnosticism on the nature of reality and make [[epistemological]] rather than [[ontological]] claims. Nevertheless, the term is useful to differentiate them from [[Philosophical realism|realists]] who believe that the purpose of philosophy, science, or literary critique is to locate externally true meanings. Important philosophers and theorists such as [[Michel Foucault]], [[Max Stirner]], political movements such as [[post-anarchism]] or [[post-Marxism]] can also be considered as relativist in this sense - though a better term might be [[social constructivist]].

The spread and popularity of this kind of "soft" relativism varies between academic disciplines. It has wide support in [[anthropology]] and has a majority following in cultural studies. It also has advocates in political theory and political science, sociology, and [[continental philosophy]] (as distinct from Anglo-American analytical philosophy). It has inspired empirical studies of the social construction of meaning such as those associated with labelling theory, which defenders can point to as evidence of the validity of their theories (albeit risking accusations of [[performative contradiction]] in the process). Advocates of this kind of relativism often also claim that recent developments in the natural sciences, such as Heisenberg's [[uncertainty principle]], [[quantum mechanics]], [[chaos theory]] and [[Complex systems|complexity theory]] show that science is now becoming relativistic. However, many scientists who use these methods continue to identify as realist or [[post-positivist]], and some sharply criticize the association.<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/| title = Sokal and the Science Wars}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.csicop.org/si/show/quantum_quackery/| title = Quantum quackery| date = January 1997}}</ref>

===Religious===
====Buddhism====
[[Madhyamaka|Madhyamaka Buddhism]], which forms the basis for many [[Mahayana]] Buddhist schools and which was founded by [[Nagarjuna|Nāgārjuna]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Garfield |first=Jay L. |title=Engaging Buddhism: Why it Matters in Philosophy |publisher=Oxford U.P. |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-19-020434-1 |location=Oxford}}</ref> Nāgārjuna taught the idea of relativity. In the Ratnāvalī, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature ([[svabhāva]]). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikāyas and Chinese Āgamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form."<ref>[[David Kalupahana]], ''Causality: The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.'' The University Press of Hawaii, 1975, pp. 96–97. In the Nikayas the quote is found at SN 2.150.</ref>

Madhyamaka Buddhism discerns two levels of truth:  relative and ultimate. The [[two truths doctrine]] states that there are ''Relative'' or conventional, common-sense truth, which describes our daily experience of a concrete world, and ''Ultimate'' truth, which describes the ultimate reality as ''[[sunyata]]'', empty of concrete and inherent characteristics. Conventional truth may be understood, in contrast, as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature". It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truth is the phenomenal world free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.<ref name="LevinsonAug06">Levinson, Jules (August 2006) ''[http://www.berotsana.org/pdf/lotsawa_timesII_sc.pdf Lotsawa Times Volume II]'' {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080724083326/http://www.berotsana.org/pdf/lotsawa_timesII_sc.pdf|date=2008-07-24}}</ref>

==== Catholicism ====
{{missing information|a historical perspective on Catholic thinking|date=January 2024}}

The [[Catholic Church]], especially under [[John Paul II]] and [[Pope Benedict XVI]], has identified relativism as one of the most significant problems for faith and morals today.<ref>{{cite web |title=World Youth Day News August August 21, 2005<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/wyd082105.htm}}</ref>

According to the Church and to some theologians,{{who|date=January 2024}} relativism, as a denial of absolute truth, leads to moral license and a denial of the possibility of [[sin]] and of [[God]]. Whether moral or epistemological, relativism constitutes a denial of the capacity of the human mind and reason to arrive at truth. Truth, according to Catholic theologians and philosophers (following Aristotle) consists of ''adequatio rei et intellectus'', the [[correspondence theory of truth|correspondence]] of the mind and reality. Another way of putting it states that the [[mind]] has the same form as reality. This means when the form of the computer in front of someone (the type, color, shape, capacity, etc.) is also the form that is in their mind, then what they know is true because their mind corresponds to objective reality.

The denial of an absolute reference, of an ''axis mundi'', denies God, who equates to Absolute Truth, according to these Christian theologians. They link relativism to [[secularism]], an obstruction of religion in [[human condition|human life.]]

=====Leo XIII=====
[[Pope Leo XIII]] (1810–1903) was the first known Pope to use the word "relativism", in his encyclical ''[[Humanum genus]]'' (1884). Leo condemned [[Freemasonry]] and claimed that its philosophical and political system was largely based on relativism.<ref>{{cite web |title=Humanum genus |url=https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18840420_humanum-genus_it.html}}</ref>

=====John Paul II=====
[[Pope John Paul II|John Paul II]] wrote in ''[[Veritatis Splendor]]''

:As is immediately evident, the crisis of truth is not unconnected with this development. Once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its primordial reality as an act of a person's intelligence, the function of which is to apply the universal knowledge of the good in a specific situation and thus to express a judgment about the right conduct to be chosen here and now. Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth, different from the truth of others. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature.

In ''[[Evangelium Vitae]]'' (The Gospel of Life), he says:

:Freedom negates and destroys itself, and becomes a factor leading to the destruction of others, when it no longer recognizes and respects its essential link with the truth. When freedom, out of a desire to emancipate itself from all forms of tradition and authority, shuts out even the most obvious evidence of an objective and universal truth, which is the foundation of personal and social life, then the person ends up by no longer taking as the sole and indisputable point of reference for his own choices the truth about good and evil, but only his subjective and changeable opinion or, indeed, his selfish interest and whim.

===== Benedict XVI =====
In April 2005, in his homily during Mass prior to the conclave which would elect him as [[Pope]], then [[Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger]] talked about the world "moving towards a dictatorship of relativism":

:How many winds of doctrine we have known in recent decades, how many ideological currents, how many ways of thinking. The small boat of thought of many Christians has often been tossed about by these waves – thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and so forth. Every day new sects are created and what [[Saint Paul]] says about human trickery comes true, with cunning which tries to draw those into error (cf [[Ephesians]] 4, 14). Having a clear Faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and "swept along by every wind of teaching", looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires. However, we have a different goal: the Son of God, true man. He is the measure of true humanism. Being an "Adult" means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with [[Christ]] is adult and mature. It is this friendship which opens us up to all that is good and gives us the knowledge to judge true from false, and deceit from truth.<ref>{{cite web |title=Mass "Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice": Homily of Card. Joseph Ratzinger<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=https://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html}}</ref>

On June 6, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI told educators:

:Today, a particularly insidious obstacle to the task of education is the massive presence in our society and culture of that relativism which, recognizing nothing as definitive, leaves as the ultimate criterion only the self with its desires. And under the semblance of freedom it becomes a prison for each one, for it separates people from one another, locking each person into his or her own 'ego'.<ref>{{cite web |title=Inaugural Address at the Ecclesial Diocesan Convention of Rome<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/june/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050606_convegno-famiglia_en.html}}</ref>

Then during the [[World Youth Day 2005|World Youth Day]] in August 2005, he also traced to relativism the problems produced by the communist and sexual revolutions, and provided a counter-counter argument.<ref>{{cite web |title=20th World Youth Day - Cologne - Marienfeld, Youth Vigil<!-- Bot generated title --> |url=https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050820_vigil-wyd_en.html}}</ref>

:In the last century we experienced revolutions with a common programme–expecting nothing more from God, they assumed total responsibility for the cause of the world in order to change it. And this, as we saw, meant that a human and partial point of view was always taken as an absolute guiding principle. Absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism. It does not liberate man, but takes away his dignity and enslaves him. It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our Creator, the Guarantor of our freedom, the Guarantor of what is really good and true.{{citation needed|date=May 2023}}

=====Pope Francis=====
[[Pope Francis]] refers in ''[[Evangelii gaudium]]'' to two forms of relativism, "doctrinal relativism" and a "practical relativism" typical of "our age".<ref>Pope Francis, [https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html Evangelii gaudium], paragraph 80, published 24 November 2013, accessed 14 January 2024</ref> The latter is allied to "widespread indifference" to systems of belief.<ref>Olsen, C. E., [https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/11/26/a-helpful-summary-of-the-apostolic-exhortation-evangelii-gaudium/ A helpful summary of the Apostolic Exhortation, "Evangelii Gaudium"], ''The Catholic World Report'', published 26 November 2013, accessed 14 January 2024</ref>

==== Jainism ====
[[Mahavira]] (599-527 BC), the 24th [[Tirthankara]] of [[Jainism]], developed a philosophy known as [[Anekantavada]]. John Koller describes ''anekāntavāda'' as "epistemological respect for view of others" about the nature of existence, whether it is "inherently enduring or constantly changing", but "not relativism; it does not mean conceding that all arguments and all views are equal".<ref name="koller89">{{cite book|author=John Koller|editor=Tara Sethia|title=Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jainism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QYdlKv8wBiYC |year=2004 |publisher=Motilal Banarsidass |isbn=978-81-208-2036-4|pages=88–89}}</ref>

====Sikhism====
In [[Sikhism]] the [[Sikh Gurus|Gurus]] (spiritual teachers) have propagated the message of "many paths" leading to the [[Ek Onkar|one God]] and ultimate [[salvation]] for all souls who tread on the path of [[righteousness]]. They have supported the view that proponents of all faiths can, by doing good and virtuous deeds and by remembering the [[Lord]], certainly achieve salvation. The students of the Sikh faith are told to accept all leading faiths as possible vehicles for attaining spiritual enlightenment provided the faithful study, ponder and practice the teachings of their prophets and leaders. The holy book of the [[Sikh]]s called the [[Sri Guru Granth Sahib]] says: "Do not say that the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran are false. Those who do not contemplate them are false." [[Guru Granth Sahib]] page 1350;<ref>{{cite web| url = http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=1350&english=t&id=57718| title = Guru Granth Sahib page 1350}}</ref> later stating: "The seconds, minutes, and hours, days, weeks and months, and the various seasons originate from the one Sun; O nanak, in just the same way, the many forms originate from the Creator." [[Guru Granth Sahib]] page 12,13.