Relativism v Absolutism

In the text Introducing Philosophy relativism is defined as:

" The thesis that there is no single correct view of reality, no single truth. Instead there are "different conceptual frameworks, alternative lifestyles, and various forms of consciousness." "

In contrast, absolutism is define as:

"The thesis that there is but one correct view of reality."

I understand what Hume is trying to get at but I can't help but think that there has to be some sort  of middle that has to be reached between the two.  Why must we be either a relativist or absolutist? This question came into my mind during class and I couldn't help but wonder.  One could define the situation with a relativst approach or absolutist one depending on the context.  This circumstance can be seen in the following situation.  Just the other day I had passed by the local church, and outside where a bunch of protesters holding signs that were holding Pro-Life signs and yelling to passing cars.  I personally agree with the Pro-Life stance on the abortion issue.  Although I realize that I believe my beliefs that I do, I also understand and recognize that not everyone agrees with me or sees my perspective on things.  I respect those people who are standing outside waving those signs with their own  beliefs and I acknowledge their values as legitamite as mine.  In this situation I would adopt the relativist perspective.  In other situations like gay marriage which is a very controversial issue I would take the absolutist approach because I am so firm in my belief that I will not be persuaded in the least bit sense.  I will listen and respect peoples beliefs although I do not believe them myself.  But this poses the question, where does it go from there? Who is right?  Where is the truth found? The answer is I don't know.



The Veil of Perception

17th century philosophers Locke and Bishop both take different standpoints on the issue of matter, and our perception on it.  Locke claimes that how we see and think about things is based on our perception.  Bishop argues that all ideas and perceptions are ones of God. 

I have an example to prove Locke's claim, I think.  This example does not disprove Bishop's however but rather aids Locke's so I'm just going to go with it for now. So. Midst writing this blog, I thought to myself, "Hm. I'm hungry," so I walked into he kitchen and opened the cereal cabinet. Now, my expectations were to find a big yellow box of Pops cereal, the best and most tastiest cereal in the entire world.  I could taste it already.  However as I stood in front of an open cabinet I saw no Pops, only Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops.  I dug in the back of the pantry because I clearly remember there being Pops here just yesterday.  The box was full and I had been the first to open it so I knew there should be more. I frantically began to dig my way toward the back of the pantry, clearing all unappealing cereal out of my way.  I found no Pops. It struck me that my memory of there being Pops was a dream I had last night.

To me, Pops was the object of my perception.  I truly believed that it existed, I was even experiencing salivation and images of actually having a big bowel of Pops in front of me.  But when I realized that there wasn't any, and that it was only a dream, my perception suddenly changed.  The cereal was real, it was existing up until the point where I physically saw that it was not.  And then my realization came soon afterward that it was only a dream.  Even though it did not actually physically exist ever...it did for me, in my perception of it.  For me, it was real and concrete.  But once my perception broke, it did not exist.  What I'm getting at is our perception makes our reality.  I am aware of how cliche that sounds but it's really true.  Just ask my nonexistent bowel of Pops cereal.