Last year I had perhaps the most interesting experience in all my time at University thus far. I was asked by a member of staff to write a small blurb about myself and why it is that I have chosen to study communication. The purpose of writing this blurb was to help the university promote a degree program on its website. I decided to proceed with the blurb and I sent it in on that same day. The next morning, I was asked to come in and meet the same person who had asked me to write the info. On meeting, I was slapped in the face by perhaps the ugliest beast I have ever locked eyes with. The lash was not literal; it was ideological and far more damaging. In fact, the beast itself is the very thing which allows and facilitates slapping, beating, and many other evil things. The monster that I describe is known as relativism and, in my case, it was followed by a contradiction known as censorship.
In the meeting, I was told that my blurb contained erroneous content and that certain influential lecturers had major problems with it. These lecturers ended up deleting parts of the information I submitted. I, obviously, could not in any way imagine what needed to be removed. The blurb simply stated that I was studying communication with the hopes of later becoming a journalist. When I checked to see what was deleted, I noticed two things were gone. First, the fact that I am aiming to be a defender of the objective truth. And second, the Trini term “God-willing” (which the blurb ended with). These are the two things that were eaten by the beast, being seen as insensitive and unworthy of “publication standards” for the university’s website.
To understand properly what kind of monster I am speaking of and why it is in fact a monster, I must digress for a moment. The monster, known as relativism, is an idea, a rather folly and ludicrous one. This monster claims that he isn’t really a monster at all since the reality of evil isn’t actually a reality (at least to him). Therefore, as ugly as this beast is, he calls himself the cutest and kindest of all creatures.
Relativism’s core principle reads: “there is no objective truth”. Typically, the demon crawls out the mouths of modernist men in the manner of a black spider-like thing. I am sure you have seen the beast come forth out of a mouth yourself, perhaps when discussing matters of morals or ethics. It creeps out on a more basic level like this: “yeah sure! It may be true to you, but based on what is true for me I will do otherwise. Who are you anyway to tell me what is true?” Therefore, the beastly/relativist approach can be reduced to the fact that the word truth is interchangeable with the word opinion. The assertion is made that because there is no truth or proper way of being/behaving one cannot claim one thing to be “wrong” and another to be “right”. Therefore, relativism may indeed effectively be used to defuse an argument, but it will never, and can never, be used to win one. Proper logic and basic common sense can illustrate its faults and, if the man who originally spewed the hideous relativist creature dares to stand up in objection, he must remember that he has just defied his own logic, thereby gobbling back up the beast he originally vomited.
Instead of allowing the slimy beast back in, true men should stand erect and hold firmly the iron spear of logic and crack the spiderlike creature in the face. They should do so, rather than hunching over in order to let the beast back inside. Logic, in fact, is and has always been, the death of relativism. But the spear has been neglected and placed in the tomb for too long. Now, however, logic is making a return and it is doing so in the manner of Jesus. It is coming back out of the tomb, not only restoring truth, but is claiming to be truth itself. The very old -yet equally strong- spear is being held, lifted, and raised once again, for it does not age or evolve with time as do Darwin’s vicious spiders.
Logic has been killing relativism for centuries, at one-time relativism slithered in a revenge-filled pursuit. It even put logic on a cross and said: “Logic hangs! aha! There is no truth: it is dead.” And in-reply Logic exclaimed; “Does that happen to be true?”
Logic then illustrates that a statement cannot contradict the very claim to which it is making. One cannot say that no absolute exists because that in itself is an absolute. Claiming, as those lecturers did, by deleting a crucial part of my blurb, that there is no truth is actually stating that there is one, to have none is actually to have one. Therefore, because the statement must be true it has proven itself false. To say the least, if logic is truth, as is Christ, then relativism is deception, as is Satan.
Satan has always wanted to kill the truth, but here is where he instead kills himself. Relativism does the same. By aiming to vanquish the truth it simultaneously sets itself up as the objective truth which all men must follow.
When I was told that lecturers removed my point about there being an objective truth to defend, I could not help but say softly aloud; “wow! What an objective thing to do!”. You see, censorship serves solely as a way in which one can further expose the lies, deceit, and hypocrisy of relativism, or as I said before: Satan. After all, if there is no objective truth why would some irrational lecturers try to protect an opinion that is as subjective and in as much flux, as any other opinion? Certainly, their work goes against the very purpose and nature of censorship. If censorship too were a living and talking being, it would say: “I hereby deem this opinion false! It must not be spread to the masses. For if it is spread, the whole society may slip into error.” Censorship then, can only be credible if there is a truth to protect, but if there is no truth then there is also no error, therefore why expurgate my blurb? If relativism were true then censorship as a being would cry out: “Woe to my existence for everything is the same. There is no ill to prevent and there is no harm to be done! Let the devils run free! After all, how do I differentiate them from the angels?” This, of course, wouldn’t mean relativism is true and that there is no truth to censor. This only means that censorship will censor itself in the name of relativism.
All in all, a relativist is as objective as anyone he disagrees with, only he is to blind to see it. I do not think those university qualified lecturers realize that they have, by deleting and censoring the objective truth, proved its superiority over all else. Every effort to censor or destroy truth proves that you are only making an effort to replace it with your own folly opinions. Saying there is no truth is a truth and censoring anyone who disagrees helps further establish that fact.
James David Lanser is the editor and founder of 868 Media. He is a 21-year-old Trinidadian born writer and journalist whose work typically explores social, economic, political and cultural themes. To contact James, you can email: firstname.lastname@example.org