Reading Pragmatism and Relativism: A Defense of Pluralism has made me think about a subject as deep as the truth. During anthropology class, I am often surprised by the frequency with which the word “relativism” comes up during the discussions held. While talking about diverse subjects, we are constantly reminded by our professor that this philosophical tendency is one of nowadays society’s biggest issues. But why?

First of all it is important to understand what “relativists” stand for. Allegedly, there is no such a thing as a universal truth. According to this principle, Idi Amin Dada was not universally terrible or war is not universally devastating. The most worrying aspect of this way of thinking is that its roots are engraved deep inside our culture. Today, it is regarded as impolite or even offensive not to agree with other person’s opinion. Since the right of self-expression is basic, we tend to mix up concepts. One thing is to respect another person while he or she shares a point of view, but another (and immensely different) thing is to be forced to coincide with whatever it is they are remarking. I mean, should we agree with a point that is objectively incorrect just to be diplomatic?

I understood the principles of relativism thanks to a brilliant metaphor related with the measuring system. If one person stated that a kilometer is equal to 800 meters while another said that it is equal to 1100, and both respected each other’s opinions just because they wanted to be polite, the measure of the kilometer would be absolutely ineffective because it would not have a true, unique meaning. What this represents is that truth is and objective issue and can only be found via de right path; a way where there is no room for those who think that everything is valid.

In my honest opinion, it’s the Pluralism the one that gets closer to the real, universal truth by admitting that the human being is only going to acknowledge a facet of the all the matters and that universal wisdom is unreachable. I appreciate the multilateral theory that pronounces that human knowledge will always be open to new formulations. During the solving of a problem, why should we satisfy ourselves with a simple solution when we all can cooperate in the summing up of our experiences, opinions and thoughts in order to be that much closer to the universal, yet unachievable truth?

All in all, I must conclude saying how much I admire the ability of this theory to respect both correct and “less correct” opinions. What this world needs is a handful of tolerance, but that doesn’t mean we should accept mistakes on our reasonings. I think this phrase not just sums it all rather well, but that it should be framed and hung on a wall:

“Quite the reverse, pluralism not only strives to affirm that there are different ways to think about things but additionally […] that there are better and worse ways of thinking about things, and that we can recognize the superiority of one way over other thanks to experience and rational dialogue.”

SOURCES:

-“Pragmatism and Relativism: A Defense of Pluralism”, by Jaime Nubiola

-“Antropología paso a paso”, by José R. Ayllón