The relativists' claim is that there is no way to know of anything, other than 'E' (the empirical realm).
Now, let's attend to the subset of 'E' - that is, the constituent parts of E (henceforth 'Es'), such as the Sun, other stars, the Earth, water, trees, pigs, humanity, etc. etc.. Though I really want to focus upon 'you', the individual itself (henceforth 'ii').
Now, how does the ii observe/see/perceive (or whatever word the J-team choose) the members of Es? From the point of view of logic, there can only be two possible stances:
1) The ii observes Es as they are, externally to itself. That is, the ii observes Es as they are, apart and distinct to itself.
2) The ii observes Es representationally and internally to itself. That is, the image of Es is generated within the ii.
There are no rational alternatives - where one entity sees another, that vision must be internal or external to the viewer. This is a necessary addendum to the relativist stance, although [seemingly] he is probably ignorant of this necessity. We can now go on to develop this line of thought:
If '1' (see above), then an ontology is implied, since it is necessary that each individual of Es must BE separate and distinct to one another. This is commensurate with the general materialist outlook - which is a metaphysic; hence not facilitating a rejection of [other] metaphysics.
If '2', then it becomes clear that 'E' must necessarily be distinct, yet integral, to the ii. That is, E must be reducible to the ii, since it is merely a representation, generated by the ii within itself.
This position is not commensurate with idealism/solipsism, since no denial or refutation of an 'external realm' has [yet] been forthcoming. That is,
at this juncture, nothing has been said sufficient to invoke any ontology, nor to refute relativism. However, further progression can be made:
If '2', it has been shown that E is reducible to the ii, since each observed entity (Es) is [internally] self-generated. That is, no single member of Es is the ii itself. Formally:
1) If Es is internal to E.
2) And E is internal to the ii.
3) Then E is not internal to Es (not internal to constituent part(s) of E), and:
4) Therefore, the ii is not synonymous with Es (the ii is not a member of Es)... and therefore, not synonymous with E (the ii is not in the empirical realm).
Here, if '2', the conclusion is that there is
'something' that exists that is distinct to the empirical realm, that gives rise to that realm. This 'thing' provides a basis/grounds/opportunity for metaphysics. It also provides sufficient basis to reject the relativist claim that "there is no way to know of anything, other than E (Es)", since the progressive logic of '2'
does facilitate such knowledge. In a nutshell, it renders relativism as baseless... and therefore, as obsolete. Dead.
Metaphysics is grounded... is justified... is alive!
