truth:
relative or absolute in nature?
if truth is absolute there exist propositions which are ‘just plain true’, that is, they have a property of ‘truth’ which exists regardless of our perspective of knowledge or opinion on the issue.
if truth is relative then all propositions stand in relation to a certain normative framework (ie that of an individual, society, culture etc.)
therefore, in the relativist view truth is NOT a property, but rather a relation between a proposition and a framework.

NoTheory:

1. any theory (such as relativism) must include a set of claims or assertions

2. for any proposition ‘X’, to assert ‘X’ is to claim ‘X’ is true. if we use ‘X’ to mean relativism we have a problem

3. relativists cannot claim ‘X’ (ie relativism) to be true because nothing is ‘just plain’ true, instead ‘X’ is only true within in context ‘C’. so

4. the relativist must then claim that ‘X’ is true relative to context ‘C’ . however this claim itself relies on an assertion of ‘just plain truth’ because what the relativist is really claiming is the proposition that “X is true relative to C” is true.

5. they cannot do that

6. so they must again assert a frame work for making the claim that “x is true relative to C”. in other words they must claim that the proposition ” X is true relative to C” is true relative to some perspective C2.

7. you see the problem: we’ve entered an infinitly recursive loop. we never answer the question “from what perspective is that true?”

8. Either relativism is self contradictory (as it assumes that relativism is just plain true) or relativism never actually arrives at any assertion, therefore failing (1) and not qualifying as a theory.

9. Its only gay if your balls touch.