The Way Towards Truth is Together
Relative
Thought Piece on The Sophistic Movement
KENETH GADIAN
At the heart of the Sophistic Movement is the
Man-Measure doctrine captured by the line “man is the
measure of all things.” In modern vocabulary, it refers
roughly to relativism. As people who are also
advocates of democracy and free thought, it is no
wonder that Sophists perpetuate this kind of
worldview that gives premium to an individual’s right
to his own truths and his own interpretation of reality.
When two people experience a phenomenon differently
– say, the wind -- the possibility of two private winds
(one cold and one warm) can be the case. Arguing that
the wind is really warm or really cold to a person who
experienced it otherwise can be likened to invalidating
his own experience of the world. As observed by the
skeptic background that brought about the Sophistic
Movement, dogmatists in their years of claiming what
really is true haven’t arrived any closer to a unified,
universal conception of Truth. What can we do but
respect and tolerate the each other’s private winds?
However, two problems arise from this, as
what I have shared in class: the problem of a shared
world, and the politics of universal standards and
definitions. Every individual has the right to his own
worldview, standards and body. I believe that one man
has no agenda in meddling with the private affairs of
another. Indeed, man can set himself as the measure of
all things in his own world and that is ought to be
tolerated. His world, his rules. However, another man
also sets himself as a measure of his own private world.
Theoretically this is possible but in actuality, people do
not live inside isolated globes but inhabit a common world.
measures of each person will sooner or later clash with one another,
creating conflict. One’s personal belief systems and standards,
manifested in behaviors and actions, will eventually bleed over other
people’s lives and affect them. We need a way to resolve this. Since the
beginning of history, man’s way to settle disagreements is to dominate.
If there is a dissenting alternative view that challenges one’s views, the
more powerful dominates the claim to truth by eliminating the people
who hold those alternative views. Tribes were cleared out, critics
assassinated, witches and heretics were burned. In an age that brags
about being civilized, this savage settlement of narrative/ definition/
truth-disputes is still popular, though now taking different forms. That
is why while the declaration of universal truths is essential, the
misgiving lies in the question of power and inclusivity: “Who gets to
declare?” or “Whose relative beliefs gets declared over the others?”
For those who have evolved, a different conflict resolution has
been developed. In instances of conflict, a ‘meeting in the middle’ or a
‘coming into terms’ is needed to unravel it. This points to the
importance of shared terms and shared truths in a world that is not
private but shared. More importantly, it reveals that this task is a
collaborative one. If a common truth will be established, it is not done
through a show of power or superior domination but ‘exploring
together’. A strategy advocated by the Church today to is Dialogue
and Synodality [Though I must say that this is amusing as the Church
being the number one dogmatic and hierarchical institution in history].
It is only in talking to each other, learning from each other’s personal
narratives, standards, and beliefs, and together crafting a definition
that considers everyone will the misgivings about universal teachings
be alleviated. The truth we will find in the end will not be as repulsive
as forced traditional dogmas and will be owned by those who
participated in the process. Universal Truths are important because it
breaks our illusionary private bubbles and teaches us to embrace the
reality of a shared world, a shared ‘Human story’, but crafting it would
also require us to go through a method that is likewise shared.