Giray Alkın Erdinç, İstanbul Hisar School, Turkey
Janos Seregi, Milestone Institute, Hungary
Jonas Jørgensen Telle, Oslo katedralskole, Norway
Giray Alkın Erdinç, İstanbul Hisar School, Turkey
“Everything is relative. Nothing should be confirmed nor rejected.”
Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, ~200 AD
Meta-Narratives and the Multi-dimensional World
The history of meta-narratives is as old as the history of humanity. Humans have always searched for a way and reason to explain the phenomenon they observed. In the same way, categories, which are placed beyond the physical world, are formed to legitimate and shape the behaviors of being. However, with a globalizing and multi-dimensional world, the basis of every generalizing theory and category have started to weaken. World has started to turn into a stage of relativity where it seemed like every behavior could be somehow justified. On the other hand, there have always been questions about the merits and values which go beyond the physical world, commanding from the worlds of the forms. Mulamadhyamakakarika, from 200 AD, claims that everything is relative and there is no particular right or wrong to determine legitimation. In this essay, the history of relativism and different aspects of the relativist idea are going to be evaluated, the notion of reality is going to be examined and finally, reflections and the situation of relativism in our world are going to be explained.
The question of what is right or wrong has been one of the most fundamental questions, standing at the heart of philosophy. Despite many theories existing about morality, the duality between relativism and an objective moral truth form the core of the arguments. Sophists from Ancient Greek were defenders of relativism; whereas, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were standing at the side of the existence of an objective moral truth. In his book, Republic, Platon reveals his ideas about the merits and moral truth. He places morality beyond the physical world where shadows dance. There exist forms which give birth to any existence we see around us. He connects the merits and values to a particular source, claiming that all moral values evolve from a particular point. On the other hand, Protagoras suggests that values can always vary and actually moral values are determined by the social, political conditions of a place rather than a frame of merit which humans are placed into. He says that moral codes are legitimized and mostly determined by the laws of the cities, indicating the effects of systems in which humans sustain their lives. Therefore, in Ancient Greeks morality was interpreted in two specific and sharp ways one of which was parallel with the idea of an exceeding moral truth, while the other sided up with moral relativism, taking the additional impacts of the social structures into consideration.
Furthermore, religions have been the ultimate source of legitimation for understanding reasons of events and leading masses to behave in a particular way. Thus, what lies at the heart of the moral truth is the belief in a static center of values which can guide the world into a “better” and peaceful place. Religion is the most strict of the meta-narratives as it uses the words of the ens perfectiisimus to guide behaviors. This understanding leaves no blank space for any comment on relativism. Everything is already shaped by the commands of Heaven and humans who are deficient in understanding the whole picture have no right to talk about morality, except commenting on some nuances of the scenario. Hume, on the other hand, remarked that our behaviors are the slaves of our passions and there is no specific moral truth that can be used to shape behaviors. Moreover, Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative” has been one of the most famous, at the same time controversial, ideas on moral truth. He commanded not to behave the others as means, rather everyone deserves to be behaved as ends. Kant also remarked that intentions must be evaluated to understand the moral, instead of the effects of the actions. However, Kant’s view of humans supposes humans to be overly rational and excludes different perspectives to interpret the situations. Each situation carries their own conditions and general categorical rules may be invalid in many manners.
Morality has a social aspect too which is mainly related to power. After the Renaissance and scientific revolution, ideals and “romantic” thoughts on human beings started to be questioned more and more. From a more realistic perspective of understanding, values started to be interpreted as a perfect vehicle to control the masses, rather than the exceeding truth. As Nietzsche put it, values change depending on the class and the points which keep the power in their hands. And the destruction of these systems of value lead to a nihilistic idea, a collapse. However, only through the destruction, humans can rise to reach the Ubermensch. Only when they create their own ideals and values, going beyond the predetermined merits, can they exceed themselves. Thus, there is no fact, there are only comments.
The question of knowledge and the notion of reality and existence are two other crucial aspects of reality. As Descartes remarked I may perceive the world and comment on the existence of myself, using my ability of reasoning. Reality, in a way, is reduced to existence and may be reached with full skepticism and thought. However, it would be a blindness to degrade the world and reality into a matter of existence. From the point of view of the structuralist thought, language and the social conditions are the main determinants of an individual. Therefore, reality and knowledge may differ from an individual to the other who experience utterly different conditions. Furthermore, the world is a sea of images and a trade between the signifier and the signified. Therefore, everything finds a meaning and a purpose in our minds. Roland Barthes examines daily life objects and events in his book Mythologies. Every aspect of life is shaped by the images and the myths created. Images lead to a myth which creates “meaning”. Therefore, there is no particular reality which is already determined. Humans determine and create reality as their experiences shape their structure. In such a world, everything turns into Simulacras, there is no way to obtain a completely valid reality which commands the world from another land.
Similarly, legitimation of the behavior and ultimate goal are two accompanying questions Meta-narratives, which are some comprehensive formulation and projection of the world, have been the main sources for validation. They carried the notion of a particular preference of one option to the other. Thus, it wouldn’t be wrong to claim that every meta-narrative has an authoritarian aspect to reveal the truth, real or moral. Religions, ideologies and tales are all some examples of the meta-narratives, they are the determinants of the values and the creators of hero and enemy. They exist thanks to separation, a sacred choice for an ideal. However, after all, God is dead and this death gave the signal for the destruction of any kind of meta-narrative, thus any kind of static center of values. A crisis of legitimation has started, science could be the source of the validation, but how could we expect an exceeding legitimation or guidance from such a changing field of knowledge. Without any meta-narrative and reality to trust, moral relativism has started to rise. There remained nothing to legitimize the behavior and there is no reason to prefer one option to the other.
On the other hand, there is a serious problem about relativism. It requires accepting any ideas and may lead to the disappearance of knowledge itself. As human rights get relative, even ideologies such as fascism may start to be justified in some sense. There may remain no standing field at all to create peace and happiness. While escaping from the totalitarian nature of the meta-narratives, humans may even find themselves in a more oppressive world where chaos and lies reign. It is a question if humans are ready to create their own values and may continue their lives in a relativistic world.
Relativism has been largely discussed for a long time. It covers many fields of philosophy and triggers important questions. In our postmodern world, where trust to meta-narratives is lost, and humans sustain their lives in a very quick and crowded world, no general concept can meet the requirements for an ideal world or to determine the rightness of a behavior. However, relativism may also open new doors for a chaotic world where unsupported ideas flow and there exists no value or truth. Thus, in our multidimensional and dynamic world, a middle way seems like the most suitable option.
Janos Seregi, Milestone Institute, Hungary
“Everything is relative. Nothing should be confirmed nor rejected.”
Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika, ~200 AD
Labelling acts according to normative standards is necessary. Defining whether an action is right or wrong, acceptable, or not is the first principle of human societies. It gives guidance for the uncertain and provides regulatory standards for the people participating in this system. I would like to argue that accepting relativity as the point of origin is a serious threat to the very human condition itself. Even tough relativity as a fact is undoubtable, it cannot be generally accepted as a cornerstone of evaluation.
The acts of a human and his motives are so deeply perplexed that it cannot be deemed objectively. Relatively speaking, it cannot be given a certain value, which categorises it into strict, one-dimensional aspects such as right or wrong. It is always a mixture of specific opposites in varying proportions. Therefore, as an objectively right or wrong act does not exist, one can never decide correctly between which category to put it into. This would suggest, that since acts cannot be evaluated completely appropriately, one should not even try to do so, as it will eventually lead to unjust evaluation. However, this would rob humanity from any standard in life, leaving it in a relative void from which no one can escape.
In order to create a functioning society, acts must be regulated, for problems to be solved. The main problem with relativity is that, in an argument, for instance, it gives both parties the upper hand. From different perspectives, they both can potentially be right, and even deemed to be so. This will leave the problem unsolved, both parties dissatisfied, and may result in a more heated conflict. The task of standards is to provide a set of demarcation criterions, based on which such scenarios can be solved. Despite the potentiality of harming one party while protecting the other, it is a necessary step towards an organised way of life. However, such criterions are impossible to form artificially.
The other end of the problem is that, even though these standards are considered to be commonly shared, they are never homogenously accepted within a community. Since, as mentioned before, no act is black and white, one can both argue for and against it under any circumstance. This clearly demonstrates relativity and objectivity are both inappropriate and harmful attitudes towards.
I firmly believe that even though these attitudes are both in themselves wrong, their combination can provide the required basis for evaluation. Keeping general value standards is necessary, but they must not be treated as such. What I mean is that a certain community will eventually form their own values by themselves. These are mostly accepted by its members and held to be important in their lives. They provide a tool for to maintain an organized life and to strive towards the most optimal way of coexisting. However, the aspect of subjectivity and relativity must always be taken into consideration. Every act must be evaluated in itself, and in relation to others. This will indicate whether an act is just or not, and if this result is in line with the commonly held beliefs or not. This gives the complexity of every problem: Which aspect to consider in what measures? And to this question, no objective answer exists, just as it cannot be left alone, relying on relativity.
Humans require to have a firm ground under their feet, even the least possible amount. The whole concept of rationality is to escape from the suffocating uncertainty of the world. Rationalisation is a fundamental way of coping with reality. It provides shelter from nihilistic scepticisms by giving a certain way of thinking, and the knowledge acquired from it. It has a designated task: to bring the whole world over a common denominator, logic. And with this denominator, comes certainty, at least partially, and the escape form nihilism. Religion, despite it is not considered to be rational in some cases, shelters the believers from this exact problem. Accepting dogmatic beliefs, and living according to them, guides the believer towards a regulated way of life. He is free in his choice, but has fixed guidelines, according to which he can measure the appropriateness of his actions. What is common in them -making a system of standards or believing in one- is that they both oppose uncertainty and relativity. Also, both of them has enough space for diverse thought or action, which, as long as they stay within limits, can be executed on a relative basis. What logical strand I will follow, or how I will interpret a holy scripts and messages, only depends on what I choose. This is an example of how relativity and objectivity appear on the level of an individual.
On a general, social level, it has other consequences. A judgement might be inappropriate, even harmful. It can inflict injustice, spring disagreements, and leave parties unsatisfied. This is the inevitable downside, and one has to live with it in every society. But I believe that even a bad decision is better than no decision at all. On what agreements these decisions are made, depends on the society itself. Hence, objective standards are essentially relative. This also implies to morality. What is considered to be right or wrong is more or less defined within a society, but the base of their inferences as such are subjective. Societies freely decide what is right, and then make it as principle. This entangled problem of opposites appearing within moral, and in general, every aspect of the human condition, is essential.
The crucial thing to outline in this problem is the danger of extremes. Nothing can be strictly relative, as it would lead to a void. And similarly, nothing can be said to be objective, as it would rob humanity of its constant motion and change. The conjunction of the ends, and an active shaping of them is the only sustainable way of maintaining a society.
Overall, the statement “Everything is relative. Nothing should be confirmed, nor rejected.” is dangerous and cannot be accepted. It would inflict immeasurable damage to the human society, as well as to the human psyche. Without guidance and fixed standards, humans would be unable to cooperate, and also to cope with the problem of uncertainty on a personal level. As a result, even is relativity in itself cannot be doubted, it is crucial not to generalise it neither.
Jonas Jørgensen Telle, Oslo katedralskole, Norway
“[N]o man voluntarily pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil
Socrates, in Plato, Protagoras, trans. Benjamin Jowett, New York: The Bobbs-Merrill
to good is not in human nature.”
Company, 1956, 358d.
Freedom, evil and human nature
In ancient Greece, most philosophers gazed upon the world and wondered what they were looking at. Thus, metaphysics was the main area of interest. That is, until someone first turned their gaze upon themselves, and realized that the beholder was far more interesting than that which he beheld. One of the first to turn his gaze, was Socrates, who dived into the unexplored depths of human nature with the curiosity of a child. And as such, he came to the seemingly childlike, innocent view that “no man voluntarily pursues evil, or that which he thinks to be evil, whatever it may be” and that “to prefer evil to good is not in human nature”.
Immediately, the statement seems absurd. Terrorism and crimes seem to contradict it. But before one attacks a statement, one must first understand it. We must do as Socrates himself advised, and make sure we discuss the core of the matter at hand, and not semantics. What is a voluntary action? Is there good and evil? And what is human nature?
The key word in this quote is voluntarily. I take this to mean that the man in question is free. Notice that we in this case can understand the quote as a definition of freedom: being free means pursuing that which is good, or at least not pursuing that which is evil. In this case, we are only free when we are not lead astray from what is good. If we consider other definitions of freedom, we might get a deeper understanding of what such distractions may be. Kant, for example, believed that freedom, in practice, was to be free of one’s senses and feelings, so that one could act purely rationally. When one considers that he believed that his categorical imperative was rational in nature, one begins to realise that what he is proposing is not different to what Socrates said about 2000 years earlier. If all free men are reasonable, and all reasonable men are good, it follows that all free men are good.
When faced with this quote, I immediately begin to reflect on my own life and experience. When I consider the times I have personally seen people act unethically, or acted thusly myself, the guilty party never seems to be completely free. To make a commonplace example: imagine how you act when you are ravenous, or exhausted, or fuming; that is, imagine sometime when you were totally ingulfed by some emotion or sensation. Are you not, in these moments, more prone to acting dishonourably or unethically? Are you not, in these moments, less yourself, less reasonable, than when you are well rested, fed and happy? Are you not, in these moments, less free?
In my opinion, most wrongdoings have their cause in ignorance, rather than passions, but of course, ignorance is not freedom. Aristotle stated that if one is to be held fully responsible for an action, one must both have been able to act otherwise, and must have known the consequences. This raises the question of intention versus consequence, and it should be obvious that an action behind which there are good intentions, still may have horrible consequences. Responsibility is closely tied to freedom, for without freedom there can be no responsibility, and I would even go so far as to equate the two: thus, an action cannot be free if it was made in ignorance; that is to say, even a fully rational agent acting on misinformation is not free. This is in accordance with the existentialist philosophy, where freedom is perhaps the main point of discussion. Being free means being in control of your life, and if your actions are based on misinformation, you do not have control.
Indeed, also existentialists such as Sartre would probably agree with Socrates that any decision made by someone who were fully aware of the consequences of their decision, and thus someone who are free, almost by definition becomes good, because good is subjective. If this individual really is free, he must act in accordance with himself, and as such, he must follow his own, self-written moral code, and since there is no objective standard by which we can declare this code to be wrong, it is as right as any other. However, it is still possible to act immorally, but you cannot act authentically and immorally simultaneously; but as it turns out, living completely authentically is – just like absolute freedom – an ideal which seems unreachable.
By using the concepts of good and evil, the quote opens a debate of absolutism and relativism. First, we will take a relativistic perspective, by once again imagining the words of Socrates as a line of algebra and rearranging to define the relative term: good, or at least what is not evil: That which a free man pursues, cannot be evil. As such, Sartre’s view is in accordance with the quote; to an existentialist who believes that ethics have no objective answers, but only subjective ones, a good action must be one that is in accordance with the ethics of the subject doing the action.
When we instead take the absolutists perspective, we might instead seek to define human nature. This is what I believe Socrates intended, for no rearranging is required: “To prefer evil to good is not in human nature”, plainly: human nature is to pursue that which is good. What is evident is that Socrates has a positive view on human nature. And while a relativist may say that good and evil is up to the individual, they could both agree on this quote, because to an absolutist with such a positive view on humanity, all humans have the same morality encoded in their nature. The only reason evil exists, then, is because all people are not free. And as such, the statement holds when viewed from an absolutistic deterministic lens – if we are not free, it is indeed the case that no free man can pursue evil – though Socrates himself likely did not intend for such a conclusion to be drawn from his statement.
Socrates’ words can be accepted rationally – as Kant did – empirically – as I have done when reflecting upon my own experiences – and from both a relativistic and absolutistic moral viewpoint. I find myself agreeing with Socrates, that human nature really is good, and that a free man is too. Unfortunately, we are so easily distracted. Dostoevsky writes in The Brothers Karamazov that human beings do not wish for freedom, and while I disagree – for I believe that we all wish deep inside to be authentic and free – I can relate to his observation. There are so many temptations and distractions to fall prey to. If only people would make a greater effort to be free and live authentically, the world might be a better place. Or perhaps we must make a world where the distractions are not so destructive.
bspee 