SIMPOZIJ
By Elvio Baccarini

Relativism as a notion, at least in application, has ancient origins. Roots of relativism are most often ascribed to Protagoras, via his famous statement that man is the measure of all things (later on relativism went through reformulations  and various versions). However, relativism has become a characteristic of the modern world. The reason being obvious: we live in a world of big communication possibilities, when cultures and worldviews meet, very often leading to unsolvable choice issues. Besides, the sum of all human knowledge has grown, not merely linearly, to enormous dimensions, with a progress based on previously acquired knowledge. Frequently, new insights replace the preceding ones that are proclaimed to be false and wrong descriptions of the world. Result is a justified question on whether new insights are really insights or just new descriptions of the world which for certain reasons replace old descriptions, and are to be replaced themselves in the times to come. Is this really how knowledge progresses? Or the situation is ruled by current power relations proclaiming the current official truths which then, through some visible and invisible mechanisms, affirm what is reasonably to be believed? Even amongst the science philosophers, in this era of intellectual and social power of the science, some claim there is neither the truth nor the method leading us towards it, and that we posses nothing but social power-relations. Such science philosophers propose each theoretical project is given the same dignity, against the exclusivity of official science. Certain issues, supplying reasons for relativism's credibility exist even in the most abstract definitions of the philosophy of cognition, due to difficulties in reaching quality definition of the knowledge, one that would guarantee realization of the reliable insight, i.e. rational and reasonable criteria of accepting the beliefs that guarantee attainment of the truth.

Speaking of relativism, we should consider the fact that our western civilization has proclaimed a tolerance principle as its founding achievement. For many, tolerance and relativism are related notions: to reject talking of comparative value of cultural models and worldviews means to accept their mutual respect. Such notional intertwining has also caused  reaction against relativism, which actually is currently witnessed within our civilizational context. Critics associate relativism with a loss of clear awareness of values (cognitive, moral and others). Such a critique can have two motivations. One is conservative, motivated by a wish to preserve certain traditional community values, those which are most often considered to be the only true values. There is, however, a liberal stance which exercises moderate criticism towards relativism. In that sense, we reach a kind of paradox towards relativism and tolerance. Every individual has a right to affirm his autonomy, but the cultural models negating the affirmation of autonomy are negated. Hence, sometimes, cultural relativists defend autonomy of some traditions, while liberal tradition wants to affirm autonomy of an individual, as a base value, versus communal autonomy. Shortly, debate on relativism lies in the very centre of present reflection in our western civilization.

Associating debate on relativism with a value notion of tolerance is often linked to a loss of true acceptance of values. It is belief, in this case, that individuals cannot truly subscribe to some beliefs or values and simultaneously consider these beliefs or values to be merely relatively true. But, such a view is completely wrong. Relativism only claims that different systems are not mutually commeasurable. An individual (or a cultural group) is left with a decision choice: which system is to be adopted. One can simultaneously consider there is nothing absolutely true in the values accepted, however, these values can be of great importance to the person, for example as expression of her identity, i.e. self-image or what she wants to become.

Even if we don't accept relativism, even if we believe the systems are commeasurable, that we can take sides as to what is better, less good or worse, relativism has one important thing to teach us and that is we are limited creatures, with limited perspectives disabling comprehensive observation. Many philosophers say our cognitions are limited with a language we use, which defines categories through which we know the world and move within it. Our perceptions, many say, are not result of  a mere activity of a neutral camera, recording the world. Behind perceptive cognitions there is a whole range of presumptions (some typical of the species, defined by evolution, and some typical of more narrow cultural, or even professional groups). More distinct perception reveals our moral stances are largely defined by experiences which we had, both in upbringing, connected to moral systems conveyed to us by our moral educators, as well as by life experiences we had. However, cognitions can progress. This happens when perspectives complement each other, hence becoming more comprehensive. Art, with its remoteness from the pragmatic everyday pressures, with its inventiveness and the capacity for observing the world from unexpected perspectives, or by exploring the unexpected possibilities of scrutinizing and portraying, in this sense presents an unavoidable value to the humanity.