Unity amidst Relativistic World

(Bro. Alvin C. Laserna, Jr.)

Introduction

How can there be unity in a relativistic world? This question could be stipulated due
to the current situation of the world. In the words of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope
Emeritus Benedict XVI) the world nowadays, is building a “dictatorship of relativism that
does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's
own ego and desires.”1 This idea is visible in the letters and homilies of the same pope.2

Relativism is, indeed, present in these modern times in a way that concepts are not
objectified but merely depending on a person or certain groups. Some quotations like “beauty
is in the eyes of the beholder” could prove this statement. More than this, however, relativism
during this modern era could be well seen in the advancement of technology, especially on
the Internet.

It is undeniable that the Internet is beneficial to many people. It helps the students to
have a more efficient way of learning, and, hence, helps in the acquisition of knowledge.
However, one could observe that by browsing the Internet, many sources define a concept
that they are looking for. Some would call this Information Overload.

Taking this into consideration, relativism poses problems. Except for an increasing
reluctance to acknowledge the truth and charity in a religious sense,3 relativism also
contributes to building some barricades among individuals. This is because if the truth would
just merely depend on an individual or a certain group, there could be chaos in such a way
that each of these individuals would stand firm to his own belief. The victim of this chaos
would be man — the same being who relativized the concepts which could originate this
chaos. However, man is a rational animal4 and at the same time, he is not just an individual
but a person who interrelates with other persons. Hence, he is capable of thinking some ways
to objectify concepts and to have unity with other persons.
1
This is taken from the homily of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in April 18, 2005 in a mass before his
election to papacy in April 19, 2005. See: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice,” in The
Holy See, http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html (date
accessed: September 22, 2020).
2
Other encyclical by Pope Benedict XVI includes Caritas in Veritate (2009). He also mentioned his
battle against relativism during his homily in the United Kingdom. See: John L. Allen Jr., “Benedict battles the
‘dictatorship of relativism’,” in National Catholic Reporter,
https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/benedict-battles-dictatorship-relativism (date accessed: September
22, 2020).
3
Ratzinger, “Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice,” in The Holy See (date accessed: September 22, 2020).
4
Celestine Bittle, The Domain of Being (Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1939), 34.
 This paper’s goal is to show that there could be unity in a relativistic world. To arrive
at this conclusion, there is a need first to define what relativism is. Nowadays, there are many
kinds of relativism but this paper tends to focus on the earlier concepts of relativism
especially that of Protagoras. Some solutions regarding the problem would also then be
shown. In defining the relativism of Protagoras, it would be seen that man is the primary
subject of relativism. As mentioned earlier, he is both the maker and the victim of the chaos
that is produced by relativism. Hence, he is also the subject of unity aimed to be clarified in
this paper. This is the reason why the concept of being would also be discussed after the
elaboration regarding relativism. This is because man is also a being. By this, one could see if
man is really capable of unity amidst a relativistic world.

The Concept of Relativism

In this present time, relativism is divided into different classifications and kinds.
Relativism “has been attached to a wide range of ideas and positions which may explain the
lack of consensus on how the term should be defined.”5 Because of this, it is better to define
relativism during the Ancient Greek Philosophy, its starting point.

Relativism is a concept which has been seen as early as the 5th Century B.C. but it
has not yet been considered as a theory of knowledge yet. Example of this is Xenophanes
who went even further by arguing that “different people model their conceptions of God on
their own physical characteristics, and the conceptions of deity are always local, driven from
the physical traits shared by the religious community.”6 “Refuted time and again, only to
repeatedly appear throughout the history of Western philosophy, it is once more a topic of
heated debate in contemporary philosophy.”7 This is the reason why this problem must again
be addressed in these modern times.

Relativism had formally started with Protagoras in his assertion,

“‘Man is the measure of all things: of the things which are, that they are, and of the things
which are not, that they are not.”8 This line by Protagoras was a response to the conflicts that

5
“Relativism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/
(date accessed: October 15, 2020).
6
Other statements which foreshadow the concept of relativism is that of Herodotus (c. 485–430 BC)
and Euripedes (c. 485–c. 406). See. Maria Baghramian and Annalisa Coliva, New Problems of Philosophy:
Relativism (London: Routledge, 2020), 26.
7
Ibid, 1.
8
Plato, Thaetetus (152a), in Plato: Complete Works ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Company, 1997), 169.
the previous philosophers before him had.9 The same line could be a means to define the
doctrine of relativism.

“Two interpretations have been given of this slogan: (1) each individual person
provides his or her own standard for interpreting things, or (2) society as a whole is the
measure of all things.”10 From this, one could say that relativism is a philosophical concept
that denies the existence of an absolute truth. The truth is merely depending on some certain
parameters. Since it is said that relativism is now classified into many kinds, still, such
classifications share commonalities with each other. It denies absolutism and its closely
linked allies, universalism, objectivism, monism, invariantism, and realism.11 It also affirms
that there is multiplicity of truth in the world. For example, in the question, “Is it difficult to
reach eternal life?” Guy A would answer yes, while guy B says no. In relativism, both of their
answers are correct because of the multiplicity of truth. The above mentioned characteristics
are what could probably define relativism.

Though this doctrine has gained its fame and said practicality in Ancient Greece,
many philosophers during, and even after, Protagoras’s time would be refuting this relativism.
This is because this poses problems. One of the reactors of this doctrine is Socrates.

For Socrates, Protagoras’s doctrine is problematic because the relativistic view of

things is mainly based on sense perceptions and for him, as well as for Plato, sense perception
can never make one attain true knowledge.12 To counter relativism, one must search the
Ultimate Truth. Reason why Plato’s Theory of Forms have been made.

Aristotle also has his own criticism with Protagoras’s theory. He said that relativism
denies the principle of non-contradiction.

For on the one hand, if all opinions and appearances are true, all statements
must be at the same time true and false. For many men hold beliefs in which
they conflict with one another, and think those mistaken who have not the same
opinions as themselves; so that the same thing must both be and not be.13

9
The Pre-Socratics are concerned mainly on the problem of universals: “What is the underlying
principle of the world?” See William F. Lawhead, “Greek Philosophy Before Socrates,” Voyage of Discovery: A
History of Western Philosophy (USA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1996), 20.
10
Lawhead, “The Sophists and Socrates,” Voyage of Discovery: A History of Western Philosophy, 44.
11
Baghramian and Coliva, New Problems of Philosophy: Relativism (London: Routledge, 2020), 6.
12
Lawhead, “Plato: The Search for Ultimate Truth and Reality,” Voyage of Discovery: A History of
Western Philosophy, 61.
13
Aristotle, Metaphysics (IV.1009a) in The Complete Works of Aristotle by Delphi Classics (United
Kingdom: Delphi Publishing Ltd, 2013).
 Benedict XVI countered relativism by saying that the ultimate goal of it consists only
of one’s ego and desires but man must have an ultimate goal: The Son of God, the true man.14

The persons mentioned have addressed relativism in various ways. This paper also
seeks to address such doctrine but in a metaphysical way. This would mean that the topic
“being” would be discussed. However, this paper, as aforementioned, is focused on how to
attain unity in a relativistic world. Hence, the discussion that would be made regarding
“being” is related with unity or oneness.

The Concept of Being

“Being,” in its direct concept, is considered as anything which is around. “They all
have this one feature in common that they exist.”15 Yet, even the things which are not yet but
could exist, are still beings. Hence, being in general means something existible, actualizable,
and realizable.16 This concept (being) has properties: oneness, truth, beauty.17

Unity is such an ambiguous term. Hence, there is a need to clarify such term. In this
paper, unity is referred to as a transcendental property of being. It is also called
transcendental unity. It is defined as that “mode or attribute of a being in virtue of which a
being is undivided in itself (and divided from every other being).”18 Unity in this context,
however, does not mean a kind of numerical unity19 or predicamental unity. Rather, unity,
when applied to being, would mean either intrinsic or extrinsic unity.

Intrinsic unity refers to ontological unity. “A unity within the very being of a single
real being, such that it exists (is actively present) with a single act of existence and acts as a
unit, controlling its actions from a single center of action.”20 This could be understood when
it shall be related to a being composed of parts. Man, for example, though has many parts is
still one. He is not just someone who is sum of its parts but a distinctive whole.

There is also a kind of unity outside the very being of a single real being — extrinsic
unity. This would mean that this unity is between two or more distinct real beings, joined

14
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, “Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice,” in The Holy See (date accessed:
September 22, 2020).
15
Bittle, The Domain of Being, 12.
16
Ibid, 13.
17
Ibid, 132.
18
Ibid, 133.
19
W. Norris Clarke, S.J., The One and the Many (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001),
60.
20
Ibid, 65.
together by bonds of relations.21 These unifying relations are relations of common purpose,
relations of common location, relations of common time, and artifacts.22 This would, then,
prove that there could exist a unity among beings.

Conclusion

The concepts of relativism and unity within being were already discussed but such
concepts shall be applied to man because, as mentioned, he is the one relativizes and the
victim of relativism. As a being, there is also this kind of unity within and outside man. He is
also a rational animal.23 Apart from this, he is also a political animal:24 he cannot live outside
the polis. This is the reason why “no one would choose to live without friends, even if he had
all the other good things.”25 Furthermore, he has this natural inclination not only toward his
own proper good but also to diffuse his own goodness among others as far as possible.26 This
affirms that he is “intrinsically active and self-communicating.”27 Hence, despite the fact that
man is single individual, distinct from others, “there is in man a profound desire to live
together with others.”28 In the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, “it is natural for human beings
to take delight in living together.”29

“The entire development of personal life unfolds through active dialogue with an
ever-growing matrix of relations to other persons and the larger world beyond them.”30
Individual experiences could not be denied. By this, relativism is also an undeniable fact. But
man, the one who relativizes and the victim of relativism is a rational animal who, at the
same time, desires to unite with others. Through active dialogue, this unity could be attained.
These dialogues could not just be a platform of reconciliation of ideas but could also be
means to arrive at the Ultimate Truth. Hence, unity amidst diversity is possible.

21
Clarke, S.J., The One and the Many, 65.
22
Ibid.
23
Bittle, The Domain of Being, 14.
24
Aristotle, Politics (I.1253a) trans. by Carnes Lord (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2013).
25
Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (VIII.1.1155a) trans. by Sarah Broadie and Christopher Rowe (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 208.
26
W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2004), 7.
27
Ibid, 6.
28
Ramon Lucas, Man Incarnate Spirit: A Philosophy of Man Compendium (Torino: Circle Press,
2005), 265.
29
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae q. 114, art. 2 ad 1. See: W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Person and
Being, 66.
30
W. Norris Clarke, S.J., Person and Being, 67.