Relativism, Contextualism, Perspectivism & FSRC

[Veritas Aequitas]

Relativism, Contextualism and Perspectivism are all relative to something.
Contextualism and Perspectivism relate locally while Relativism is global, i.e. extend to all of reality.

To those who condemned [insist it is stupid] or do not understand my FSRC [Framework and System of Reality and Cognition] thesis, I suggest reading the following article
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

Traditionally, Relativism is contrasted with:
Absolutism, Objectivism, Monism, Realism,

• Content: Main
  1. What is Relativism?
  2. Why Relativism?
  3. A Brief History of an Old Idea
  5. New Relativism
  6. Conclusion

You can skip '5. New Relativism' but to understand my FSRC one must read the whole article.

'Relativism' is fundamental to my FSRC but my FSRC has a wider coverage that avoid the "self-excepting" "self-refutation" fallacy of global 'Relativism.'

My principle of reality [FSRC];
All of reality, existence, facts, truths, justification, knowledge, description, and objectivity are contingent [conditioned] upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition [Knowledge] [FSRC].

While relativism focus on 'relative' or co-variance with, my FSRC focus on 'contingent' [conditioned].

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Atla]

Relativism, Contextualism and Perspectivism are all relative to something.
Contextualism and Perspectivism relate locally while Relativism is global, i.e. extend to all of reality.

To those who condemned [insist it is stupid] or do not understand my FSRC [Framework and System of Reality and Cognition] thesis, I suggest reading the following article
Relativism
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/

Relativism, roughly put, is the view that truth and falsity, right and wrong, standards of reasoning, and procedures of justification are products of differing conventions and frameworks of assessment and that their authority is confined to the context giving rise to them.

More precisely, “relativism” covers views which maintain that—at a high level of abstraction—at least some class of things have the properties they have (e.g., beautiful, morally good, epistemically justified) not simpliciter, but only relative to a given framework of assessment (e.g., local cultural norms, individual standards), and correspondingly, that the truth of claims attributing these properties holds only once the relevant framework of assessment is specified or supplied.

• Content: Main
  1. What is Relativism?
  2. Why Relativism?
  3. A Brief History of an Old Idea
  5. New Relativism
  6. Conclusion

You can skip '5. New Relativism' but to understand my FSRC one must read the whole article.

'Relativism' is fundamental to my FSRC but my FSRC has a wider coverage that avoid the "self-excepting" "self-refutation" fallacy of global 'Relativism.'

My principle of reality [FSRC];
All of reality, existence, facts, truths, justification, knowledge, description, and objectivity are contingent [conditioned] upon an embodied human-based Framework and System of Realization of Reality and Cognition [Knowledge] [FSRC].

While relativism focus on 'relative' or co-variance with, my FSRC focus on 'contingent' [conditioned].

Discuss??
Views??

You have reinvented a part of God: now your human-based FSRC is the absolutely certain point in existence.

EHBFSRRC[K]P

[Iwannaplato]

To those who condemned [insist it is stupid] or do not understand my FSRC [Framework and System of Reality and Cognition] thesis, I suggest reading the following article

I don't think the idea is stupid at all. I think you betray the idea when it suits you. I think I respect it more than you do.

[Iwannaplato]

Discuss??
Views??

Relativism going agains the whole universalist bent of your moral realism. For example, what we might call murder in one society, another society might consider a justified honor killing, even of a family member. Each position is justified LOCALLY and there is no way to say my culture's view of what a good killing is is more correct than your culture's view.

You just let the ooyote into the henhouse to chase away the fox.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Discuss??
Views??

Relativism going agains the whole universalist bent of your moral realism. For example, what we might call murder in one society, another society might consider a justified honor killing, even of a family member. Each position is justified LOCALLY and there is no way to say my culture's view of what a good killing is is more correct than your culture's view.

You just let the ooyote into the henhouse to chase away the fox.

As stated in the OP, the fundamentals of Relativism are the same as my FSRC but not in its various crude primal forms especially moral relativism, e.g. as claimed by Peter, Sculptor and the like.

Relativism has been, in its various guises, both one of the most popular and most reviled philosophical doctrines of our time.
Defenders see it as a harbinger of tolerance and the only ethical and epistemic stance worthy of the open-minded and tolerant.
ibid

There are many knots to untangle in reconciling relativism with my FSRC.

[Iwannaplato]

As stated in the OP, the fundamentals of Relativism are the same as my FSRC but not in its various crude primal forms especially moral relativism, e.g. as claimed by Peter, Sculptor and the like.

But this is just waving hands. IOW you are just asserting that this will be done, somehow.

VA: Here's an idea that supports my position.
Someone Else: But actually it leads to conclusions that fundamentally contradict your position.
VA: That's the crude version.
SE: Well, so far this contradiction is what we have.

There are many knots to untangle in reconciling relativism with my FSRC.

SE: Well, so far this contradiction is what we have.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As stated in the OP, the fundamentals of Relativism are the same as my FSRC but not in its various crude primal forms especially moral relativism, e.g. as claimed by Peter, Sculptor and the like.

There are many knots to untangle in reconciling relativism with my FSRC.

In the OP I have presented the definition of Relativism and also my general principle of what is my FSRC.
Any rational person can see there are similarities.

As suggested, one need to read the full article and one will have a better understanding of the similarities between relativism and my FRSC as well as the differences.

Anyone read the article with emphasis on the section of Conceptual Relativism?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/#ConRel
If one do not read the article, how are we to discuss?
If yes, what are your comments, i.e. is the fundamental of relativism similar to the fundamental of FSRC.