This paper defends the view that philosophical propositions are merely relatively true, i.e., true relative to a doxastic perspective defined at least in part by a noninferential belief-acquiring method. The methods considered are rational intuition and religious revelation. I argue that there are no reasons to think that one method is likelier to produce the truth than the other, yet they generate inconsistent results. I argue that a trilemma results: either there are true philosophical propositions, but we can't know them (scepticism), or there are no philosophical propositions and the naturalists are right (nihilism), or relativism is true. I suggest that relativism is the most palatable of these alternatives. "Intuition, Revelation, and Relativism "

Steven D. Hales

International Journal of Philosophical Studies

Vol. 12, No. 3, September 2004, pp. 271-295

full article text click here