Raw LLM Responses

Could someone help me understand the disquotation argument? I can work under the premise of disquotation, it seems good enough. And I can see why, if both truth and reality are relative, relativism is just a brand of solipsism; I don't think I agree, but I understand the argument. I don't understand the middle link though. "Snow is white" is only true under the condition that snow is white. A relativist says that "snow is white" is relative, but that's not because of a possible or negative condition of the prerequisite that snow is white, it is because we cannot know. Maybe snow is white, maybe it isn't. It's perfectly acceptable to believe that one of those is an objective thruth without believing that the limited perceptions and understandings of humans can access that truth with certainty. The existence of some absolute reality in spite of relativist limits on our perception of it (IE. Relativism and not solipsism) seems perfectly reasonable. To clarify, I don't mean to counterargue; I don't mean to promote one method of thinking over another. But how does this dismantlement work?