There is no doubt that every knowledge system (exempting, perhaps, pure mathematics, to which we shall come later) is inevitably conditioned by its local context and politics. But, primarily, the debate of East versus West over knowledge source and its legitimacy for the other is actually a deeper debate of relativism vs universalism.
A kneejerk reaction against the “other” & its legitimacy for the self actually builds upon a relativism discourse. The idea being that the truth is not necessarily universal and that every civilization has its own kind of truth bearing upon a particular historical experience and specialized explorations into ontology and epistemology. All the claims for one universal truth for all are suspiciously seen as attempts towards an essentializing violence, levelling down contextual variations and totalitarianism. Therefore, apparently, one has to either accept relativism which will earn legitimacy for one’s own local knowledge system (but in turn would compromise its universality scope) or subscribe to universalism in which case it will replace one hegemony with another. The idea of uniqueness and the “just” nature of particular hegemonies are, again, endlessly debated by corresponding adherents.
If we take the first case i.e. full flown “relativism” — it fails to register the radical universalism of “money” or capital and the adjacent global (universal) culture of consumerism cutting across all differences of local contexts and identities. Similarly, it fails to seriously consider the problem of mathematics. However, there is a deeper debate on Mathematical Platonism within Philosophy of Mathematics (& its contestations) which the present author is not qualified to further comment upon.
Moving on, as for the second case, i.e. universalism, it is guilty of economic closure of thought with complete failure of registering truth outside of one’s own particular conception or universe of meaning and, therefore, in a painfully self-contradictory manner belying its own position of “universalism”. Universality by virtue of being universal cannot arrest, encapsulate, enclose and exhaust (universal) Truth within an economic closure of thought.
Here, I wish to invoke Ibn Arabi, who makes a central point with regard to “belief” and adherence to it. Adherence in and of itself can become yet another expression of egotism, a new localizing idol. It belies the primary universal attribute of salvation mentioned in the Quran i.e. taqwa (God consciousness). A Muslim, who submits to transcendent God/Truth alone, cannot commit the mistake of making a certain identity into a new god. A Muslim, by definition (submitter to Transcendent God), should always remain open to experience — open to Truth.
Moreover, critics, both internal and external, are always valuable for genuine pursuit of Truth. Self-regarding and other-reflecting reflexivity is absolutely essential for a true sincere seeker, free from resentment and ideological (camp/cult/group) thinking. One should impartially critique both self and the other to the point that it absolutely individualizes oneself (as in one is constantly immune to mob psychopathology — without of course severing from one’s own respective group or tribe for all practical purposes) such that one finds it difficult to perform any sort of stark, divisive, blind ideological group thinking.
One should always stand by the side of oppressed, marginalized, deprived, maimed, killed, ridiculed, sidelined, and what not, irrespective of our own groups and camps; it is precisely this universalism which is salvific. The world is under a constant threat of mob mania. The root of this brute violence is loss of individual conscience. It is the task of this individual conscious light (which is free of group sentimentalism) to resist giving into extreme ideologies. It is this individual conscience which can prevent the crystallization of amorphous mass into mob mania.
To conclude, Surah Hujurat, āyah 13 says, “O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may get to know one another. Surely the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the most righteous among you. Allah is truly All-knowing, All-Aware”. In this profound exposition of Quran, we find a brilliant synthesis between the above two polar positions. The first part of the āyah attests to the inevitable presence of relativism between different tribes and cultures but the latter part of the āyah registers the universal element of taqwa (cutting across all differences) which is essentially a mode of being (not dissolvable to doctrinal disputes).
(The Author has done masters in Philosophy from the Centre for Philosophy, JNU and is
pursuing PhD from the same institution. Feedback: [email protected])
