[Adicted2aa]

First, I'm not a relativist, and I'm not an objectivist. I mix the two. The buddhist idea of the middle way or the middle path.
Second, Pretty much all religions, excepting certian philosphical eastern ones, imply objectivity. The jews, in fact, were less objective then the rest. They held that the one god thing was true, but it only mattered for them. They never tried to convert. till jesus
Third, ockham's razor, it only applies in an objective world where only one set of rules can apply, but in a relative world, it doesn't really matter that much, so....
Basically what I'm saying is relativism doesn't need to be prooven to the world, because its a personal philosphy. Its about how things change depending upon whos observing. Eye of the beholder type shit. It only really matters to the person experiencing it. Objectivism insists that we are all in the same world, so it needs to be prooven, because it effects all of us. But the funny thing is, complete relativism allows for objectivism to exist, because thats just someones personal view, but complete objectivism doesn't allow for relativism, because there is only the one truth, and no other shadings of it. I don't know if thats easier to understand. I have trouble communicating my thoughts, sometimes.