“There is no universal or unconditional truth.” Or “Nothing is universally and unconditionally true.” If this is true, then it is neither universally nor unconditionally true. It’s application is quite limited. If someone says “This relativism is not true *for me.*” what is the relativist to do? On what basis does the relativist insist that *his* relativism is true for anyone else?
graalbones
A great WordPress.com site
graalbones 
Zhai
If this turns out to be a critique only of “naive” relativism, I’ll be happy with that. Most of the relativists I’ve encountered adopt it, I think, out of a commitment to tolerance. I want to tell them they can “Live and let live.” without the embarrassment of naive relativism. Maybe I should start from there, rather than go straight to attacking something they hold dear. That usually makes people a little irrational.
At times in my debates with relativists I’ve wondered “Why are you giving reasons for your position? Why do you care what I think?” As you say, a sincere relativist probably wouldn’t care about things like that. Which is not to say that they don’t care about anything at all.
I mention Toulmin in part to force myself to reread him. I would explain his argument to you if I could. That will take some time. Basically, he thought that formal logic was the wrong standard for argument in general. I disagreed with that. Still, I’ve been influenced by it. I don’t even know what it would mean to ask you to give up formal logic. Nor would I ask someone to give up something so beautiful.
Paul
PS
At some point I collected all the Quinn I could get my hands on. I got the most from *Two Dogmas* and enjoyed *Quiddities*.