Cultural relativism
I do not consider myself as cultural relativist, simply because there are no objective reasons to think of non-European cultural values as self-sustained paradigms. The worth of every culture directly corresponds to this culture’s ability to trigger the process of scientific progress. In its turn, this implies that the carriers of particular culture must be able to operate with highly abstract categories, as it is namely such their ability that creates preconditions for the emergence of civilization as complex geopolitical phenomenon. There are many unique cultures can be found throughout the world, representatives of which continue to regard their own cultural affiliation as such that needs to be “celebrated”. However, even the Presidents of such countries as Uganda or Papua-New Guinea wear European suits on official occasions, while trying to prove to the whole world that they are not just savages, but fully civilized individuals. After having originated in ancient Greece and Rome, the European ideals of physical and intellectual excellence continue to remain unsurpassed in aesthetic value. The only non-European cultures that were able to advance, since the beginning of Era of Exploration, are those that maintained a close socio-political ties with traditionally White countries. This points out to the fact that we cannot seriously discuss non-European cultural heritage as equally valuable to European cultural heritage. The non-European cultural values are being traditionally associated with “spirituality”, “closeness to nature” and “environmental friendliness”, whereas European cultural values cannot be discussed outside of notions of science and technological progress. However, it is namely science and not “spirituality”, which allowed America to put a man on the Moon and which lays at the core of Western civilization, as we know it. Therefore, the very concept of cultural relativism is not substantiated with hard evidence – it is nothing but one among many ideological tools of neo-Liberalism.
Subjectivism
The notion of philosophical subjectivism is based on assumption that different people perceive objective reality differently; therefore, it is quite impossible to talk about the truth as something that is being discovered, but rather created. Moreover, subjectivists claim that nothing can be known for sure, which explains popularity of this philosophical doctrine – any person can justify its inability to excel in academia by declaring its allegiance to subjectivism, which in its turn, imply that such person does not believe that it is possible to gain an objective knowledge in principle. However, if it was not up to our possession of an objective scientific knowledge, we would still be living in jungles, while indulging in cannibalism as our full-time occupation. Science might not have answers to all questions yet, but the answers it already has are undisputable. This is what differs it from religion, “spirituality”, or “philosophy of New Age”, which are absolutely incapable of benefiting people practically. The best way to prove philosophical invalidity of subjectivism is to ask subjectivists to live according to their own beliefs – that is, they must be willing to stop utilizing electricity, driving cars and using computers, since these activities could not become a part of our everyday lives, without their theoretical basis being objective in its essence. Subjectivism is nothing but a contemporary form of classical sophism, which has proven itself as the “dead end” of philosophy long time ago. Therefore, we cannot seriously consider subjectivist claims, just as we cannot seriously believe that, living in primitive African hut, while eating cockroaches for breakfast and participating in never-ending tribal warfare, can somehow be “culturally equal” to living in American or European city, while taking a full advantage of countless merits, associated with Western civilization.
Bibliography
Radcliffe, Royce “It’s all Relative: Challenges Subjectivism Poses to Aesthetics”. 2005. Hellium. Web.