Is Truth Really Subjective?
Relativism vs. Objectivity
The nature of truth has long been a subject of debate in philosophy. Is truth universal and objective, or does it depend on individual perspectives? The ancient Greek thinker Protagoras famously claimed, “Man is the measure of all things,” challenging the notion of objective truth [1].
Objective truth is independent of individual perspectives, remaining true regardless of who observes it. In contrast, subjective truth depends on individual minds, shaped by biases, perceptions, emotions, and opinions [2]. Given this distinction, can we truly dismiss the existence of universal truth?
Protagoras and the Subjectivity of Truth
Protagoras’ assertion that “Man is the measure of all things” positions the individual as the ultimate arbiter of truth and reality. According to this perspective, what is true for one person might not be true for another, as each person’s perception is inherently subjective. For Protagoras, there is no universal truth; instead, truth is contingent upon individual interpretation [3].
This relativistic viewpoint has profound implications for our understanding of knowledge. If truth is subjective, then absolute notions of truth and falsehood become problematic. At first glance, this approach seems appealing because it promotes tolerance and appreciation of differing viewpoints. However, as we will explore, relativism also presents significant risks.
The Paradox of Relativism
While Plato is well-known for critiquing Protagoras’ relativism, it was his teacher, Socrates, who offered a particularly incisive examination. Socrates, famous for his method of dialectical questioning, sought to explore the deeper implications of Protagoras’ assertion that “Man is the measure of all things,” which claims that truth is entirely subjective and dependent on individual perspectives [4].
Socrates’ approach revealed a significant paradox in Protagoras’ relativism. If all truth is subjective, then Protagoras’ own statement must also be subjective. This creates a contradiction: if every opinion is true, then Protagoras’ claim that “Man is the measure of all things” must also be subject to this same relativistic standard. This internal inconsistency undermines the validity of relativism itself.
In a notable passage from Plato’s Theaetetus, Socrates presents a pointed challenge to Protagoras’ view. He asks [5]:
“Well then, Protagoras, what shall we do about the doctrine? Shall we say that the opinions which men have are always true, or sometimes true and sometimes false? For the result of either statement is that their opinions are not always true, but may be either true or false.”
This question underscores the fundamental problem with Protagoras’ view: if opinions are subject to change and can be either true or false, then the claim that all opinions are always true collapses, revealing a critical flaw in the relativistic framework.
Relativism in Modern Thought
In contemporary society, relativism is often embraced as a way to celebrate diversity and challenge rigid dogmatism. Phrases like “your truth is your truth” illustrate this approach, suggesting that truth is subjective and varies from person to person. While this perspective seems to promote liberation and democratic values, it also presents notable risks.
When personal beliefs or experiences are treated as sufficient to establish truth, regardless of evidence or logical reasoning, it can lead to a fragmented worldview. In such a context, distinguishing between fact and fiction, or between harmful and beneficial ideas, becomes increasingly difficult.
A potential risk of relativism is that it may allow harmful ideologies to flourish unchecked. If truth is entirely subjective, there may be no grounds for condemning harmful beliefs or actions, potentially fostering a climate where intolerance, prejudice, and even violence are justified as merely different perspectives.
Can Relativism Logically Exist?
Consider this paradox: If we assert that there is no objective truth, we are making an objective claim about the nature of truth itself. The statement “There is no objective truth” is presented as an objective fact about reality. If we accept this statement as true, we encounter a contradiction: we are asserting an objective truth within a framework that denies the existence of objective truths.
Given this issue, can we not reject the perspective that truth is entirely relative and recognize that if objective truth would not exist, then claiming that no objective truth exists becomes self-contradictory?
