Who's to Say?: A Dialogue on Relativism

I think this is my new favorite book. I couldn't put it down. Each argument is put forth eloquently then meticulously challenged. Formal and material logic is represented. The conversation starts out questioning "is custom king" and leads through what I would consider logical "heaven" (my own opinion,lol). I have heard many of the arguments presented in this book time and again even in casual conversation. In my opinion this book thoroughly dissects and challenges each premise to the point that I cannot see any point to logically argue the point any further. It is crystal clear, concise and easy to follow I think even for someone who does not "study" logic or philosophy formally. Anyone who has ever argued the point of relativism could benefit from this book. In fact I think everyone could benefit from reading this book, it's just THAT good! Sondra

If you like Socratic dialogs, you will love this book. If you don't like the idea of objective right and wrong, then you will hate it - it hurts to have one's cherished fantasies demolished.The secret in reading dialogs is to read them slowly, as if they were conversations, and not to speed through them like a novel. Because this is a short book, slow reading is not a drawback....that ends with: "He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave."There is also an excerpt at ..."At the heart of human life there lives the fat relentless ego--continually busy justifying its own works, interpreting everything in its own favor, making itself look good to itself and others. I wonder whether it isn't the ego that lies behind the popularity of relativism. Arguments for relativism appeal to the ego; they make it look good--at least as good any other ego!I want to get beyond the comforting fantasy constructions of our selfishness. What I want for my children is that they be honest with themselves and others rather than deceptive; compassionate rather than indifferent, kind not cruel, wise and not foolish. What I want for them is to love--to care so much for others and the world they live in that they can see it for what it really is.What I don't want is for them to learn that "It's all relative." I don't want them to ask "Who's to say?" when they face hard questions about the morally good thing to do. In that question you can just see the indifferent shrug of the shoulders. We don't need more handy excuses for self-indulgence.There is an answer to the question, "Who's to say?" It shouldn't function as a merely rhetorical device. The correct answer is that I am to say, and you, and we together are to say. These questions about the good life are not ones we can shrug off this way. They do get answered one way or another. And if we don't do our best to answer them well, then the lazy, the wicked, and the self-interested will answer them for us. Or we will become like them ourselves."