In philosophy, the position that all value judgements (e.g. ethics, morality, and truth) are relative to the standpoint of the beholder. To put it another way, relativism does not accept that there is an absolute ground or reference point that could provide an objective guarantee that things are not necessarily the same as they are perceived to be by a given subject. If one is neither religious nor a hard-headed seriality, then some version of relativism is unavoidable, which creates a great many difficulties for philosophers in this situation because it is easy (though not necessarily accurate or just) to turn this into an accusation. postmodernism has been taken to task on numerous occasions for precisely this reason: it challenges the plausibility and possibility of an absolute ground. As a consequence it has been charged with being apolitical, ahistorical, unethical, and so on, because all these things---politics, history, ethics, etc.---are said to require a ground to function properly. As Lyotard, Jean-François shows, the problem with relativism is that it enables historical revisionism such as Holocaust-deniers to claim that their position is as valid as any other. His solution, only partially successful, is to focus on what he calls truth-regimes. Badiou, Alain offers a slightly different solution to the same problem via a retooling of Sartre, Jean-Paulâs concept of the project. Badiouâs project is that which attracts political conviction, i.e. a belief equal in strength to religious belief. See also anti-foundationalism.