Okay . And that makes a lot of sense . I ' m not sure how to go about this without having essentialist tones to it . But , to your view , Nietzsche has a quote where he basically says words are pockets into which different things are put now and then throughout history . I can see how this goes for values as well . But our perspectives do come from a common source . Physiologically one of the things that leads to perspectivism is our phylogenetic inheritance and evolutionary history . Our sensory means , drives and their affects have been created and tailored in this way . So while we have the capacity to value according to our perspective , I don ' t think that means values are inherently and wholly perspectival . In the world it can play out that way , but in the process it seems that in some cases one would have to ignore parameters put forth by evolutionary roots that point towards some hierarchical distinctions and implicit characterizations of values . A tentative example would be how extreme asceticism may be practiced in the name of health , even though it ' s damaging practices go against what ' s put forward towards the value of health by evolution . I ' m not trying to deny your position , rather hear your thoughts on the idea that every perspective shares a bit of common foundational ground and that this , if true , wouldn ' t make values static but would outline a common template of what constitutes a kind of default condition for some values . Which , like in the case of the extreme ascetic , can still be ignored