Whenever I see an old pile like that all I can think of is how hard it would be to heat the bloody place! Probably my latent Calvinism.

My vision does not change depending on what I'm looking at. The things being looked at are what's different. — Patterner

More importantly, from my perspective, you (the one doing the looking) are different too. The expectations, beliefs, aesthetic impulses, and preferences that are awakened or activated by different phenomena and contexts shape what you see. And what you think you see. It’s not just the object that changes, but the subject who encounters it. 'The looking' is nothing without the rest of our experince. Or something like that.

Emmanuel Kant said that "Nothing straight was ever built with the crooked timber of mankind." So, why expect religions to be better than anything else? — BC

Hmm. We might reasonably expect religion to be better, morally or existentially, than other human pursuits. After all, unlike sales, filmmaking, car manufacturing, or blacksmithing, religion claims to orient itself around the ultimate concern, divine guidance, and the pursuit of goodness. If it doesn’t offer something deeper than any other human activity, then one may as well ask, what's the point? :razz:

Philosophers argue only. They do not yield enough to listen, understand, because this is mostly not publishable. — Astrophel

This may be part of the reason I was never much fascinated by philosophy. Arguments don't excite me much, and the experience of living teaches us enough, if we pay attention.

Still, I cannot understand why the likes of Critchley and Rorty remain metaphysical nihilists, while someone like Hart, profoundly well read, makes the Kierkegaardian "movement" of affirmation. I guess the distance between us is too great. — Astrophel

I think it's dispositional. As much as I find Hart fascinating and intelligent, I find his beliefs to be cloying and unsatisfying. The notion of the metaphysical God of classical theism doesn't engage me. When it comes to beliefs, like the people we love, we can’t help what we’re attracted to.

. As I see it, the next step is understanding that one's individual consciousness is not a localized event only, though. — Astrophel

Are you suggesting idealism?

What is next is Michel Henry's Essence of Manifestation. — Astrophel

Our inner experience is the ground of reality. On this point, from what little I’ve gleaned, I see no reason to disagree. It’s easy to argue that modern life reduces everything to consumerism, surface values, and the grey managerial-technocratic lens through which most Western governments operate. But I’m curious: what practical steps might this way of thinking actually lead to? Life is more than sitting in a room reading and pondering ineffables. What does one do?

There seem to be religious yearnings in the frame you have presented. In relation to Caputo one might hold that his weaving of postmodern ideas back into the religion of his upbringing has an inevitability about it. Is his experince similar to yours? It often seems to me that people assiduously look for new (or perhaps less familiar) reasons to believe old ideas.

. I think one emerges from all this thinking with a bent towards what one already IS coming into it. — Astrophel

Yes, I think that's fair. Philosophy reflects one's disposition.

...that arises simply out of a failure to observe what lies befor one's waking analytic eyes-- two things: first, this indeterminacy IS our existence, and it is where philosophy meets the pavement, so to speak. it is where philosophy belongs in the affirmative effort to bring to light the world as it IS. The world is most emphatically NOT an argument in its ground, but is entirely alien to everydayness, into which we are "thrown". — Astrophel

I’m reminded of theologian and philosopher David Bentley Hart who writes that when consciousness is freed from ego, distraction, and fragmentation, it encounters reality as inherently good and radiant. Bliss isn’t something added to existence, it is woven into its nature. Hart often stresses that the fact anything exists rather than nothing presents us with a kind of metaphysical astonishment, something so basic we usually miss the strangeness of it. Are you sympathetic to this, or is it straying too far into a specific religious mystical tradition?

. As far as I am concerned, analytic philosophers are just a bunch of pathological post Kantians, who have entirely lost the sense of what it is to be human (yes, of course, there are exceptions), thinking the Truth lies in a truth table, an argument, and well drawn up theses. At heart, logicians. Might as well be mathematicians. — Astrophel

I take it this is at the heart of your thinking - this and the notion that whatever is transcendent is found in the immediate experince of being - that which seeks, wonders, hopes, dreams, desires...

This is, for me, where transcendence begins: to perceive the world that has been rigorously liberated from Heidegger's "the they" (the finite totality of what can possibly be meaningful for a person and her languge and culture) altogether, yet not leaving it at all, for without the they, agency itself is lost. — Astrophel

This could also be said to be heading toward mysticism and non-dualism, with the notion that the self (understood misleadingly as a product of culture, language, and upbringing) can be stripped of conceptual overlays and ego to realize true freedom. Or at least a new starting point. What is the next step, I wonder?

What do you think your understanding says about morality?

Oh, this is great. Thank you. Let me mull over it. Will return.

Restate it more simply? It's not really an argument. — Astrophel

I wasn’t saying you made an argument. Your writing was just opaque to me, so I was trying to get you to express it more clearly, particulary for those who don't necessarily share your background.

And, what makes the world knowable, which is the same as the question, what IS the world? — Astrophel

I’d say the world is not 'knowable'. We can live. do and make things, but when it comes to 'knowable,' I'm not sure what that even means. I don't think our human truths map onto some eternal reality.

Anglo-American philosophy students are left with an education in philosophy that does not touch the most essentially philosophical questions in existence. — Astrophel

That's frequently observed by the Continentals, but my background is 1) not in philosophy, and 2) neither Anglo nor American. And I get that philosophy is vast and there are differing approaches that are like oil and water to each other.

The good and the bad: what IS this? How are knowledge claims about the world actually about the world? What IS the world? — Astrophel

Well, as I wrote earlier, for me, they’re not so much about the world itself; they’re about our relationship with experience, and it’s contingent; connected to consciousness, language, and culture. But feel free to say more about this. Are you more interested in exploring these questions further, or would you prefer to leave it?

I'm not a phenomenologist, but for Husserl, for instance (and this is a reductive account) I understand the term transcendental refers to the conditions within consciousness that make moral experience and meaning possible. However, it seems later phenomenologists, Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty somewhat were at odds with Husserl’s notion of the transcendental, arguing instead that meaning and ethics arise from our embodied, situated existence in the world rather than from a detached, pure consciousness model.

Is this where you are suggesting we look?

Both Theism and Mysticism view their God as a ghostly sovereign-in-the-sky commanding blind faith and obedient submission to the mysterious will & wishes of an invisible potentate, who loves you unconditionally. — Gnomon

I think you'll find that the God of mystics doesn't conform to such a stereotype at all, which, for many, is precisely the attraction. Take the God of Thomas Merton, a 20th century Catholic mystic: his God defies categorization and theology and is more a presence to be encountered in silence than a figure to be obeyed or even defined.

If God is totally ineffable, why would we waste time debating on this effing forum? — Gnomon

That's the standard question posed by critics (ususally materialists) of this account: at the very least, a dignified Wittgensteinian silence, is often recommended. The ineffable is, of course, to those who believe, experienced through mystical insight and contemplation, so it's not something readily put into words. But there's plenty of respectable literature on the subject.

Whether one prefers to achieve these insights in the form of psychology, philosophy or literature, if they do no more than reinforce a sense of victimization, then they will leave you imprisoned in your own anger. — Joshs

Nice.

And ask, while logic seems it cannot be gainsaid, how about the language that is used as the medium of its expression? Is this not historical and contingent?). — Astrophel

Indeed. And I have to say, contradictions and endless regress don’t often worry me much.

Thus, Rorty is going to argue that being kind to one another does not need religion to back it up, for it is built into, and inevitable in, a pragmatic social evolvement. — Astrophel

Yes, I’ve found Rorty, in as much as I can follow his thinking, compelling on this point. But probably because intuitively I have come to similar conclusion. While he may have his limitations, as a non-philosopher, I leave that to the academics and theory geeks to sort out.

But I say Rorty misses the point, and the point is genuine metaethics that is both foundation of ethics, and is transcendental: ethics as such transcends reduction to what can be said about ethics. Rorty's failing lies in his commitment to propositional truth, that is, truth is what sentences have, not the world. But this truth is derivative OF the world, and thus, the world has to be understood inits ethical dimension, not in the finitude of language. — Astrophel

Not sure I follow your wording. Are you saying that Rorty is too caught up in language to see that ethics comes from a deeper, more fundamental source, something beyond what we can put into words? Or something like that? Could you restate it more simply? I think we’ve tried to explore this notion of the transcendenal before, but we might be too far apart to get anywhere with it. As a non-philosopher, I take some responsibility for that. I am assuming you take the transcendental to mean something similar to Husserl's notion of the conditions of consciousness that make morality and meaning possible?

I'm sorry to have wasted your time with my own more up-to-date interests. :smile: — Gnomon

No need to apologize, it's expected on forums that people can only respond based on their own experiences or level of understanding, so mismatches in responses are common. That's part of the charm.

But, as a non-catholic, I have little knowledge or interest in those biblical theological accounts of God. — Gnomon

I'm not a Catholic either. But I did say this in the OP -

No doubt this idea of god's infinite, unknowable and divine essence could be said to overlap with other religious traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

Whether or not these accounts are ultimately persuasive, they at least ask different questions than those usually debated in popular discourse. — Tom Storm

I expected more references to Hinduism and Buddhism, but maybe these only appeal to a select group of older people, relics of the syncretic era (like me).

And most modern accounts of God/Reality/Mind --- Idealism, Panpsychism, etc. --- are merely ancient notions, up-dated to include scientific support for metaphysical god/mind concepts. — Gnomon

I think this is fair. It's sometimes not so much about up-to-date science, but rather focusing on gaps in science and the purported inconsistencies in traditional physicalist accounts, which, naturally, open the door to more speculative metaphysics. That's certainly how the indomitable and prolific Mr Kastrup does it.

But in asking the question about more philosophical accounts of God, I guess I was primarily asking if this is fundamentally a matter of contrasting theistic personalism with apophatic theology/mysticism?

I lay all this out to highlight that the first premise is more fundamental—an invariant moral principle that transcends both historical periods and cultural boundaries. It is precisely these kinds of foundational moral statements that I find most compelling. — Showmee

I see where you are coming from.

I don’t treat any of the premises as fundamental they’re all contingent. For example, if I caught someone invading my home, I might respond with force, possibly even lethally, depending on the circumstances.

I think a common flaw here would be assuming that treating all people equally is anything more than a demonstration of a particular framework of values, one that happens to be embedded in contemporary Western culture. But it’s part of a broader conversation, and that discussion is about who gets to count as a citizen with rights. Yes, cis women. But what about trans women? Some people don’t even recognise them as such.

And such advocacy of extended citizenship and solidarity, to use Rorty’s term, sits within a framework of cultural and linguistic practices. It is not something found outside of us as humans. We make agreements about values and develop practices, and these become embedded and sometimes appear to be immutable, but they are not.

I’m not sure that answers the question. What you’re saying is a well-known trope, essentially, if you were me you would be following the same path.

But my question isn’t about the obvious factors of personal situations/histories/biology, but about the specific thoughts or questions that you are working to address through your preoccupation with goodness. I’m assuming you are trying to achieve something and I’m interested in what that is. But you don’t need to answer if you don’t want to.

I get that you disagree with me about the Christianity reference. Disagreement is healthy. Happy to put to that to one side. The question remains: Why the preoccupation with being good in every possible circumstance?

As you can see from the quoted Bible verses, Christianity is not all-loving. — Truth Seeker

I never said Christianity is all loving and I know the old testament God is like a violent mafia boss. I said your message was ostensibly Christian. And it certainly fits.

But none of that really matters.

Why the preoccupation with being good in every possible circumstance?

Your preference is all it is. I can understand that you like music with certain characteristics, and possibly predict which compositions you will like. But that's not the same as saying those compositional are "good," or that I like them.


but there's an attitude I can adopt to both in seeing why they're the ones we are considering in the first place: they're both good! And what is this goodness? Why these people, and not the butchers of the same time period?
— Moliere
I'm a baroque fan in general, and Bach in particular. Vivaldi was one of his influences, so we can compare them easily enough. — Patterner

I think this is right. It's also worth noting that preferences change. I disliked Mozart and Beethoven when younger (I was a Mahler and Bruckner guy). Found the music ugly and cumbersome. Now I like some Mozart and most Beethoven. We change and the art changes with us.

I am an ex-Muslim ex-Christian Compassionist who does not believe in any God, so it is definitely not a form of Christianity. My motivation is my love for everyone. — Truth Seeker

It's still ostensibly like a Christian message. You don't need God to have a Christian moral outlook, it's embedded in culture. It's often said that human rights and secular morality are like Christianity sans Christ.

You seem to be driving yourself very hard.

This is the vow of a Compassionist:
1. I help all, harm none.
2. I see everyone - even the harmful, the indifferent, and the selfish - as shaped by forces beyond their control.
3. I replace blame and credit with understanding.
4. I replace judgment with care.
5. I love, not because the world is loving, but because love for all is the inevitable solution to the problems we face. — Truth Seeker

It's pretty much a form of Christianity. You seem to be intent on pushing yourself to be super good and significant in the world. Is this a bit grandiose; what's the motivation?

I suppose the main benefit, is a sense of peace, contentment, happiness etc. While nurturing a sense of wonder and a childlike humility. — Punshhh

That sounds like a useful position to be in. Thanks.

Now, if I’ve learned one thing from philosophy, it’s to restrain myself from making belief-changing judgments before thoroughly exploring all the available information. While I, too, intuitively feel that moral propositions are artificially constructed and mind-dependent, it's still an interesting question to ask whether it might be the case that these principles possess the same degree of self-evidence and absolute certainty as logical or mathematical statements. — Showmee

Sure.

I mean, is it really possible to imagine a world where people kill whenever they feel like it—and genuinely regard this as morally acceptable? Or is the concept of justice truly contingent, when it just feels inherently wrong for one of two equally qualified candidates to be chosen solely because she is a good friend of the selector? — Showmee

Well, those feelings, as you put it, don’t come out of nowhere. We are a social species who are raised to believe in the common good and right and wrong. So, we are primed for morality from the very start of life. It’s hardly surprising that we have built ethical scaffolding all around us. But you’ll note, over a century ago a woman with a job, for instance, was considered deviant and wrong. This was a feeling also. Today (unless you’re in some unsophisticated or uber religious part of the world), the idea of women with jobs is not seen as a moral problem. Humans make decisions based on frameworks and values and these are intrenched in our culture and language.

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused). — 180 Proof

I can certainly see how this works. What percentage of Americans do you think are sincere God believers? It's pretty low here in Australia and most Aussies are embarrassed about religious conversations.

I won't go into the specific "sophisticated" arguments, but I'll list a few of the great minds. Arguing on the "pro" side of Panpsychism are David Chalmers, Philip Goff, Galen Strawson, Bernardo Kastrup, and David Bently Hart. On the "con" side, arguing against Panpsychism, are Daniel Dennett, Patricia Churchland, and Peter Vickers. Regarding the debate between Vickers and Kastrup, the author says "both thinkers seem to find it hard to grasp what exactly the other is really saying". So, the key barrier to communication seems to be "systemic and structural cognitive biases" in the form of Realistic vs Idealistic worldviews & belief systems. — Gnomon

I’m familiar with the work of most of those writers. Kastrup is the most engaging in person and on his blog though his books are a bit dense and convoluted for my taste. Dennett, the Churchlands (when Pat's husband was still alive), and Vickers are all bêtes noires of the higher-consciousness crowd, often reviled as materialist muppets who miss the obvious. Hart's account of Dennett is particularly brutal. I can't claim expertise in the area, but I find it interesting that Graham Oppy, a philosophically sophisticated atheist whom Hart respects, considers himself an identity theorist when it comes to the mind. Oppy claims to have resolved some of the mistakes made in earlier versions of that account. But this is for elsewhere.

Hence, no need to posit a traditional transcendent God to explain the emergence of metaphysical human consciousness in a physical world, that appears to be 99.99% non-conscious matter. :smile: — Gnomon

Sure, but I’m not asking for explanations of the world or reality. I’m asking how people defend and describe more philosophical accounts of God.

Glattfelder is a form of idealist who combines information with consciousness as the fabric of reality. It’s all very interesting, but it belongs in the idealism thread. As it happens, I’m not even sure I would count Kastrup’s Mind-at-Large as a God surrogate, although one might sneak it in as borderline. The issue is that Kastrup (like most idealists) needs some kind of intervening cosmic force to unify his various strands and ideas borrowed from Jung and Schopenhauer. He comes up with this cosmic mind idea as an alternative to Schop's “will.” For Kastrup, the Great Mind is instinctive and not metacognitive, so many of the attributes of God are missing. But I guess it qualifies as 'the ground of being' given we are all dissociated alters springing from this primal stream of consciousness which is all there is.

And yet I can’t go to a spiritual, or mystical based forum to discuss it there because they are places full of people with very little critical rigour in their philosophies, or ideologies. Most of it is out and out woo. I expect you know what I am referring to as you spent time involved in the New Age movement. — Punshhh

Yes, that’s an interesting point. If you take this material seriously, it’s not easy to find people who are disciplined or rigorous about it. It’s been a long time since I was involved in any real way. The closest I can get to what you’re saying is that my fullest experience of the world is entirely intuitive and I can't always access words to explain why I choose certain paths.

I know that there are spiritual based organisations and communities within the schools of thought, such as Buddhism, Yoga, Theosophy etc. But I don’t want to become involved in any of these movements at this point. I’ve been there and done that. — Punshhh

I hear you. Do you mind if I ask, what does it feel like to hold the beliefs you have? Is there reassurance, or a profound sense of meaning? Or is it ineffable?

The OP topic sounds like a reference to intellectual debates between two opposite standpoints : Theism (God is) vs Atheism (no god). Did you intend to make this thread more complex (sophisticated?), by including various shades of opinions on "shin-barking" reality vs Ultimate Reality?. Do you want to change the focus from God to Truth? — Gnomon

I think the thread has shown a diverse range of responses to the OP, so I’m pleased. But these things tend to take on a life of their own, as you've suggested. I don't place too much weight on any particular sentence or paragraph, it’s all just a big casserole of ideas built around a hero ingredient. I'm not looking for this to go anywhere in particular. It's a conversation.

But philosophically-inclined thinkers seem to be more trusting of their own personal powers of reason. So, they "ground" their knowledge in formal rational exploration — Gnomon

I'm not sure about that. Philosophically inclined thinkers seem to rely upon the work of others: heavy hitters in the subject (Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche, Husserl, etc) . And they are focused on pre-existing models as understood through scholarship - formal and modal logic, phenomenology, pragmatism, post-structuralism, etc. It's a fairly small cohort.

I haven’t found that this thread is pointing in any particular direction, but it has highlighted a key theme: a conversation about what counts as a coherent or useful idea of God. Which is why the following (although ostensibly about Kant's position) is a good summary.

Quoting @Wayfarer

"So when Kant says that God is “beyond all possible experience,” that’s true within the bounds of his system. But that’s also the crux of the critique: what if those bounds are too narrow? What if there are legitimate forms of insight that don’t conform to his propositional model? Mystical traditions, contemplative practices, and certain strands of idealist or existentialist philosophy have all tried to develop alternatives to that constraint. Which is not to reject Kant but to broaden the context in which his questions are considered.

In that sense, the question isn’t just “what can we know?” but “what counts as knowing?” And that’s still very much a live question.

However, Dolly Parton, Evan Bartells, Hank Williams, Johnny Cash and a handful of others have blown my arse out. — AmadeusD

Yes, I think these are artists who transcend the genre. Most music lovers seem to like them, even if they dislike Country. I certainly enjoy some Johnny Cash and Hank Williams on occasion. I think one's commitment to music may change for some of us with age. I listen to far less music now I am older. I used to spend a couple of hours a day listening to classical music. I sometimes think our desire for music is connected to other appetites, emotions and energies which subdue, divert or dissipate over time. One thing I have noticed is that music has a greater emotional impact on me with age.

Sounds like you have a lot of insight.

I very much doubt there's a fixall. If I get to be scientistic, that's mostly because I think "depression" likely covers a lot of possible causes. — Moliere

Indeed.

EDIT: Also, I've noticed that people who have depression often emote in a lively and animated way. But then, after having done the performance necessary for them, they return to a place where they can charge up to do it again. — Moliere

I've worked with many dozens of people experiencing chronic depression over the years. While everyone is different, it's clear that those who ignore the diagnosis and refuse to seek help often suffer the most and many do not survive. You're right, one can't pick the depressed person from their performance on a forum or even how they seem at work.

What have you found helpful? Has contact with others and activity helped or deepened the experince?

Well thanks, wasn’t sure I was going in the right direction.

Do you perceive/discern the speaker's intent differently if you think of them (the speaker) as usually conservative or usually liberal? — David Hubbs

Perhaps. I guess it would depend. Many of my leftist friends dislike woke culture just as much as my conservative friends do, so perhaps they would both be using the term ironically to describe their inability to fully commit to their former beliefs or to the political opposition.

ou're certainly right that we can give more detail about what we like and don't like. But it seems to me it just moves the question down a level. Why do we like or dislike the details?

It's strange sometimes. I like bread. But I like both a soft, fresh loaf, and a multi-grain like Arnold's or Killer Dave. — Patterner

Interesting. I avoid bread, rock music, Russian novels, and sport. I've never been able to engage with them, despite valiant experimentation. It's dispositional, no doubt rooted in some kind of affective relationship with culture and value. The truth is, I find rock music and sport ugly, and bread and Russian novels boring. But asking why quickly drags us into an infinite regress, each reason presupposes another, and eventually we’re probably left circling back to temperament and taste.

Approaching ethics from my own perspective, I find the field deeply problematic. Unlike other branches of philosophy, a systematic and formal treatment of ethics seems impossible. — Showmee

Morality/ethics doesn't strike me as a particularly exciting area. For now I see all our ideas of right and wrong as contingent; historical, cultural, and emotional in origin. So I suppose I’m a relativist, and I think most of our moral positions are grounded in sentiment not a transcendent source.

But we can cobble together a kind of quasi-objective morality if we agree on a shared subjective aim, say, the minimisation of suffering. Once that aim is chosen, we can evaluate actions against it. But the foundation remains chosen, not discovered.

Beyond that, I’m not especially concerned. Morality is, to me, a conversation that a society has with itself. We can trace where that evolving conversation has led, on questions like women’s rights, LGBTQ+ equality, the status of slavery, or capital punishment. These are negotiated over time, producing cultural consensus, always knowing that complete agreement is unlikely, if not impossible. And we can also go backwards - as we have seen.

The standard comeback always seems to be: "If you're a relativist, then you can't be against murdering babies." But in reality, most relativists aren’t murdering babies. That argument is a bit of a strawman. Yes, historically and across cultures, infanticide has at times been accepted. But as a social species, we determine right and wrong through the practices we choose to support or reject. Personally, I’m good with being against baby murder. Moral relativism isn't the same thing as moral indifference, it means recognising that our judgments are grounded in human values not objective absolutes. A relativist can condemn baby killing from within multiple moral frameworks, each based upon different ethical commitments. The search for the one absolute foundational "this is wrong" seems futile.

Here's AI on the subject: For Kant, disinterestedness means that when we judge something as beautiful, our appreciation is free from personal desires, practical motives, or any interest in possessing or using the object. The interest is “pure” because it’s not tied to anything outside the experience itself—no stake in its utility, no emotional attachment, no pursuit of gain.

Does that work?

h man, then I'm in trouble. My thought is it's highly theorized interest, in the sense that I know what I'm interested in and I know what other people are interested in and I can separate the two.

Though.... I can see a place for untheorized interest using the same locution, now that I think of it. The first time I watch a movie because a friend recommended it is untheorized interest: let's see what this is about, then. — Moliere

Most of my interests are untheorised. This is simply a personal disposition. :wink:

So if you had to summarise what disinterest is in relation to art, can you do it in two simple sentences? I am assuming you have an openness and no commitments to influence your appreciation?

I tend to think of disinterested interest as untheorised interest, a term I've often used. Untheorised means responding to something without frameworks or training, intuitively for pleasure and, I guess with disinterest - if by this we mean minus theoretical investment. But maybe I'm on a differnt track.

experiment with alternative schemes, trying them on for size. One way to do this is to take on a role, like an actor would. The technique is minimally threatening because the person can remind themselves that it is ‘only’ a role, and if it turns out not to useful they can abandon it. — Joshs

I'm reminded of the cliché, that a change is as good as a holiday.

Thank you

When that compass ceases to be effective at insuring such belonging, events lose what gives them their overarching coherence , salience and significance, and we drift though a fog of meaninglessness until we can reconstruct a new compass on the basis of which we can relate intimately with others. — Joshs

Recommendations for how to do this?

:up:

if one perceives them differently, the answer is "yes". If one does not perceive them differently, the answer is "no". What am I missing? — David Hubbs

What do you mean by 'perceives them differently'? There are people I know who I can't label politically, it's impossible to categorise them since they hold views from a range of political sources and vote differently each election.

"Narcissism" and "arrogance" were probably poorly chosen words. So, I can see why they confused you, and I should think more carefully. But there's still a significant problem with relativism about truth. If relativists believe it's always true everywhere, their belief is self-contradictory. They believe in absolute relativism. — BillMcEnaney

No, that's a common error. Saying “relativism is self-defeating” only works if you ignore how relativists actually define truth. Relativism doesn’t claim universal truth; it asserts that truth is always relative to a framework, so the statement “truth is relative” is itself a framework-bound claim, not a universal one. That said I'm not especially concerned by so-called performative contradictions, I think contradictions are just part of how life and language actually work.

A relativist will often argue that truth depends on context, like culture, language, or conceptual schemes. I think that's pretty much the case. So when they say something is true, they mean it's true relative to a particular framework, not that it's universally true for everyone at all times. In Western countries, we often have intersubjective agreements about values, but even some of these are open to challenge. Some people condemn homosexuality, while others proudly fly the rainbow flag of inclusion. There are different frameworks even within a single culture.

Can that treatment be found in philosophical writings or literature? — javi2541997

Personally I don't often go to books for anything important. But that's me.