Relativism vs Systematic Thought: Ancient Greek Philosophy Is Still Relevant Today

A while back I wrote a diary concerning a discussion I had with friends and family over one weekend: Weekend Ruminations About White Supremacy. I indicated at the end that that was just one of the two rather major conversations I had that weekend that ended up with some interesting conclusions. The other conversation was about two opposing philosophies, relativism and systematic thought.

History is my husband’s hobby. He had been going through a Greek play and philosophy phase, which for him provides a backdrop for the influences on society throughout history. At the time of our discussion on this topic, he was reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which is basically a treatise on Plato’s writings. Both relativism and systematic thought are contemplated within the book.

Relativism, or Sophism, is based on the idea that everyone creates their own reality. There is no one truth. The art of rhetoric is considered an ideal form of communication. Success is defined by how well one can convince others of the validity of your reality, not with facts necessarily, but through pure rhetoric. 

Systematic thought is diametrically opposed to relativism. It’s based on the idea that everything has a concrete explanation which can be found through rule based processes which will inevitably uncover the one true reality. Aristotle is the champion of systematic thought and is credited for developing the foundation on which the Scientific Method is based.

It is pretty easy to see why relativism might be a problem in society. Donald Trump is a perfect example of a Sophist. He values rhetoric over fact based analysis to the point of absurdity. He is pretty good at it too, considering how close he is in the polls. He has developed a narrative that many people see as completely detached from reality, but delivers it so convincingly that many others, no matter what the actual facts are, believe that only his version of reality is real. The Sophists in ancient Greece would be very proud of their modern practitioner. 

Trump, however, is the benefactor of a political machine that has been in existence for decades. Its entire structure is based on relativism. The GOP, which for these purposes also include such people as the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh, and Rupert Murdoch, are our modern day Sophists. While still using A.M. radio as the standard bearer for their communication efforts, they have quickly adapted to the use of modern communications technology, such as 24/7 cable news, the internet, and social media, to spread their rhetoric far and wide. They have masterfully created a narrative that deliberately discourages the public from any fact based analysis whatsoever, which in the end benefits only those who are in the know.

What about systematic thought? Obviously a philosophy that is based on rule based fact finding and decision making would at first glance seem to be the best counter to our modern day Sophists. Aristotle thought so during his time. His philosophy was almost completely reactionary to the Sophists of his day. However, this too has its problems. The saying, “Rules are made to be broken,” is antithetical to systematic thought. Where as relativism is pretty much a free flowing process, systematic thought is completely rigid. 

Let us take the attempt at educational reform that has incorporated standardized testing as the main form of assessment. This type of reform is based solely on systematic processes that leave very little room for diversity among the student body or creative teaching methods within the classroom. Everyone is expected to learn and perform in a uniform manner, which then allows the bureaucrats to “fairly” assess the progress of each student.

I am sure there are not very many people here at DKos who do not see the problem with this mind set. Systematic thought leaves no room for organic processes to develop out of personal and group experience. Educators around the country have been fighting this style of educational reform since it began, because they know first hand humans are not machines and their diverse circumstances by definition require an adaptable and creative approach to education.

Yet, educators also know that pure relativism, where fact based analysis is left in the dust, is also very dangerous to our education system. White nationalists and the Christian Right have tried very hard to insert their relativistic viewpoints into our public school system in response to the standardized, systematic approach to education, and in many places have actually succeeded. It is no surprise that intellectual literacy is on the decline in this country.

Back to politics. President Obama is one of those rare politicians who understands the need for a balance between relativism and systematic thought. He understands the visceral response humans have to rhetoric; he understands that there is no one right answer or one particular approach to the problems facing us. However, he uses fact based analysis in both his rhetoric and his approach to public policy in an effort to make sure decisions by voters and within government are made based on factual reality and not whatever narrative the extreme right or left are using to reach their own version of Utopia. 

When I think about Hillary Clinton and how people react to her, I have realized that she definitely leans towards systematic thought in her approach to politics and public policy. She shies away from rhetoric, which is why people feel she does not “connect.” But after seeing her speak at a rally, I do not think this is because she is not capable of rhetoric. I think this is because she is the victim of double standards that hold her rhetoric to a completely different standard to that of someone like Donald Trump or even President Obama.

Her demeanor and every word spoken are picked apart and analysed through the lense of what our society feels is appropriate for a woman. Rhetoric is batted down as her having grandiose designs on power. Any perceived extreme reach in public policy is looked at as a hungry power play. She has learned to thread a needle that allows for limited rhetoric and a very pragmatic approach to public policy.

Having seen some of her more recent speeches since the debate, I have seen a Hillary Clinton who is allowing herself a more rhetorical free flowing approach to her campaigning. I can only imagine that if we could deliver her a decisive win at the ballot box that included political gains down ballot, we might just also see her become more daring and adventurous in public policy as she will feel more free to take on the huge fights like she did in the early 90’s with healthcare, before she was completely slammed for not meeting our culture’s expectations for what is appropriate for a woman in our society. She needs to know we have her back, that she won’t be punished for being a strong, visionary President for our country just because she is a woman.

Read more http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/01/1576772/-Relativism-vs-Systematic-Thought-Ancient-Greek-Philosophy-Is-Still-Relevant-Today