The entire concept that "There is no absolute truth" is a paradoxical statement because it in itself is claiming a truth. The idea that our feelings aren't a truth but only a result of our culture is in itself a feeling from the author that could be a result from his culture, however maybe for me, in my culture it teaches that my feelings are the truth so it contradicts itself. In Cultural Relativism, claiming that "there is no universal truth" is claiming a universal truth. This is a contradiction that happens when people try to claim certain things don't exist.
For example in Waiting For Godot and the philosophy of existentialism they say that life is meaningless unless you give meaning to it and that there is no universal values save the ones we make for ourselves. Having no universal values gives a universal value to the existentialists it is just that they have no value. In this sense the existentialists cancel out their own beliefs by contradicting themselves. Plus, if everything in life was meaningless save the things given meaning then society wouldn't exist, for example if language was only meaningful because we give it meaning and it wasn't given meaning then there would be no communication, just as the article states about how societies need certain things to survive. Existentialism states things in society only have the value we put in them, however without things things there would not be a society so this whole concept can not work. If something is meaningless its absence isn't noticed, but there are things in society that without them we can not survive.
To connect with society this paradoxical truth idea shows up in Agnostic and Tolerance beliefs.
Agnostics believe that there is no God and nothing is definitely true when it comes to religion. However that right there is a truth about religion, that there is no truth. By saying they can never be sure of anything when it comes to God, they are saying there are sure of something, they are sure that they are unsure. It's a contradiction and goes against what they are saying.
The article addresses tolerance and says that we need to be tolerant of other cultures and other people who are different and also talks about the different views on homosexuality. I feel like this Cultural Relativism does show how people brought up differently will have different opinions no matter what and that should be respected, with some exceptions. However, today in America, the idea of tolerance is extremely popular and there are tons of advocates for gays, African Americans, women, the disabled, you name it. However, this whole tolerance idea also contradicts itself, because if they were truly tolerant they would respect everyone, even those who are intolerant. But, as seen in the news, no matter how "tolerant" we are we have an intolerance for the intolerant. By claiming they are tolerant but do not respect the views of people who are intolerant contradicts the idea that they are tolerant.
In my opinion this article was very intriguing. I enjoyed reading it because James Rachels showed how this theory can't be completely true, but also showed how it has some things that should be learned from it. It made me think about things in our society that seem like they give a sound answer but actually contradict themselves and don't give an answer to questions. To me it is frustrating that people claim there is no truth, there is no meaning to things, when they are claiming truth, and there must be meaning to things or else nothing would exist. For me, being tolerant should mean being tolerant even towards the intolerant, otherwise it is a false claim.
In conclusion, saying there is no truth is a truth, so no matter what you say or belief there is truth.
