Later, we verify that it has some religions and that all have right to exist. In short, the ones that today we think that it is truth tomorrow had thought that he is false, and are therefore that I say that everything is relative. This reply it is an attempt of justification of the idea of that everything is relative. But it will be a good justification? Your work in philosophy is to argue my arguments. We could start for making to notice that this justification seems to mix two different things: The scientific progress and religious tolerance.
Perhaps therefore was advantageous to see each one of these things separately. We could start for the first one, asking if it is same truth that the scientific progress sample that truths are all relative ones. For the opposite, you could say that, if everything was relative, would not really have scientific progress; it would have only one change of scientific theories. The old theories would be so good as the modern. But if this was truth, that reasons we would have we stop changing the theories? I could answer that we are forced to move of theories for some reasons. For example, when a certain group of scientist if wants to detach, he can present a new revolutionary theory and make everything to see its theory to be accepted.
But this nothing says in them on the intrinsic value of the new theory. The new theory is so good as the old one; they are only different. Already you see that the philosophy is an activity dialogued: it consists of changing and arguing ideas. The difference between a philosophical quarrel and one would cry out, for example, it is this: in philosophy we argue to arrive at the truth of the things, independently to know who ' ' ganha' ' the quarrel; in one it would cry out is argued to gain the quarrel, independently to know of that side this the truth.