SOPHIST RELATIVISM: ORIGIN, CHARACTERISTICS, EXAMPLES - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2025

The sophist relativism is a philosophical current that considers the truth and morality, not as absolute facts but as realities conditioned by many factors. The defenders of this current assure that no situation can be considered good or bad, true or false, since there can be many realities of the same situation depending on the perception generated in each of those involved.

The sophist current was one of the most important within the philosophy of Ancient Greece, although it was later discredited by such influential figures as Socrates, Plato or Aristotle.

Source: pixabay.com

Origin

The sophists were philosophers of ancient Greece, teachers of wisdom who professed the rejection of religion, a rational explanation of natural phenomena, subjectivism and the nonexistence of objective truth.

The term sophist of Greek origin means "wise". Its most recognized representatives were Protagoras, Gorgias, Prodicus and Antiphon, from the 5th century BC.

Relativism has its origin in skepticism, in a lack of confidence in the truth. However, these concepts should not be confused. For example, a skeptic may claim that he does not believe in ghosts, while a relativist does not deny or claim that they exist, but supports the belief that many truths could surround the subject.

characteristics

For the precursors of this current, everything is conditioned and relative. Next we will find the main characteristics of sophist relativism.

- Denies the absolute truth, since it will depend on each interpretation that it produces.

- The perception of the truth can change over time

- It rejects the existence of good or evil, since these concepts are conditioned to the perception of each person or group.

- There is no culture better than another.

- There are no ideas superior to others, relativism accepts all positions.

- Universal morality does not exist, since it depends on the culture that professes it.

Types of relativism

With the passage of time, the characteristics mentioned above were conceptualized as follows.

Gnoseological or cognitive relativism

Consider that there is no absolute truth.

Group relativism

The truth will depend on each group that perceives it.

Individual relativism

Moral norms depend on individual convenience or perception.

Moral and cultural relativism

There is no universal morality, since it depends on the cultural group or person who perceives it.

Examples of relativism

In the modern era, samples of moral and cultural relativism are observed in many aspects of everyday life:

- It is okay to eat beef in western countries, but not in India, where cows are considered sacred.

- Drinking alcohol may be acceptable in some religions, for others like Islam it is inadmissible.

- Women can wear light garments in some countries, as opposed to places like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

- Female mutilation is unacceptable in Western countries, while in Somalia or Sudan it is part of an ancient custom.

- Some countries accept polygamy, while in others it is considered a crime.

Drivers of sophist relativism

Protagoras

The philosopher Protagoras (481-401 BC) reaffirms the premise that the good or the bad is in the hands of a society, that it could have an opinion for each individual that compose it and that this opinion could change with the passage of time:

“Regarding the just and the unjust, the good and the bad, I firmly maintain that, by nature, there is nothing that is essentially so, but it is the opinion of the community that becomes true when it is formulated and throughout the how long this opinion lasts.

Gorgias

There are relativists so radical that they do not even accept the reality of the physical world. An example of this relativism of individual character is represented in this thought of Gorgias (485-380 BC): “Nothing exists. If something existed, it would be inconceivable to man. If it were conceivable, neither could it be transmitted or explained to others ”.

Detractors of sophist relativism

It is relativistic to accept the existence of various perceptions, and these were not lacking among other philosophers who turned their backs on the current of relativism.

Aristotle

Aristotle (384-322 BC) rejected the non-existence of a single truth promoted by the sophists:

“If everything we think, if everything that seems to us, is the truth, then everything must be both true and false. Most men think differently from each other; and those who do not participate in our opinions are considered to be in error.

The same thing is therefore and is not. And if this happens, it is necessary that everything that appears is the truth, because those who are in error and those who tell the truth have opposite opinions. If things are as has just been said, everyone will still tell the truth ”.

Socrates and Plato

Historians claim that Socrates (470-399 BC) and Plato (427-347 BC) qualified relativism as absurd for making the transmission of knowledge impossible by not allowing access to absolute truth.

Relativism and human rights

With relativism, the sophists challenged the morals and customs of the time in which they lived, questioned precepts that were accepted without any further revision, sowed the seeds of doubt, demanded a more individual analysis of what happens in each aspect of life. life and especially proclaimed respect for the perception of each person or social group.

However, in our modern age this is not fully accepted. For the philosopher Ramin Johanbegloo (1956), cultural customs that violate human rights should not be defended under the banner of relativism.

It assures that the customs of the peoples must be protected and promoted, but that human rights are universal and not relative. For this philosopher, acts such as slavery, stoning, female mutilation, or the marriage of children, among other actions that go against a full life, have to be censored.

Ironically, the defenders and detractors of relativism would be making use of it by having the possibility of choosing one side or another, making use of the fact that the truth of each group is valid, in view of the fact that there may not be an absolute reality.

References

1. Richard Bett. (1989). The Sophists and Relativism. Published by Brill
2. Philosophical Dictionary. (1965). Taken from Philosophy.org
3. New World Encyclopedia. (2018). Taken from newworldencyclopedia.org
4. The Sohists. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2011). Taken from plato.stanford.edu
5. Allen Wood (2000). Relativism. Taken from csus.edu
6. David Bradshaw. (1998) Sophists. Taken from uky.edu
7. Ramin Johanbegloo (2010) Human Rights cross-cultural dialogue. Published by El País. Taken from elpais-com.cdn.ampproject.org