When No Perspective Is Superior
A Necessary Confusion
In interrogating my awareness of the multidimensionality of human existence, I crystallized three guiding principles that defines this existential philosophy.
1. There are numerous perspectives to understanding the nature of a thing
2. No perspective is superior to another
3. If there should be a superlative perspective, it is one that is an integration of other perspectives or at least a consideration of other perspectives
I invite you, my reader, to sit with me on this second principle No perspective is superior to another.
This principle appears to resolve centuries of epistemic violence in a single stroke. It sings as a philosophical equalizer. It hits at the heart of colonial and universal arrogance. It rejects domination.
But like many things that appear simple, it carries a quiet danger. The danger here is that the moment this principle leaves the pages of this essay and enters the world, it begins to fracture into interpretations I did not intend.
Some hear it and conclude that all perspectives are equal. That no judgment can be made. That truth dissolves into preference. That contradiction is no longer a problem. And in that moment, what was meant to liberate begins to blur into confusion.
So, we must interrogate this principle to understand what it is actually doing.
The Seduction of Equality
There is a deep historical reason why this principle distilled from my musings and introspections.
For centuries, one perspective: Western, colonial and extractive, positioned itself as dominant and universal. It did not say, “this is one of the ways of seeing and knowing.” It said, “this is the only reality.”
Everything else became primitive, irrational, inferior and in need of correction. So, when we say no perspective is superior, we are not making an abstract claim. We are resisting a historical violence. We are saying, no single lens owns reality, no system has the right to erase others, no knowledge and tradition is inherently illegitimate.
This is the ground from which the principle emerges.
But resistance alone is not enough to build a world.
Where the Confusion Begins
The problem is subtle, such that in rejecting hierarchy, we accidentally begin to reject discernment.
We move from no perspective is inherently superior to all perspectives are equally valid in all situations. And that shift is where the ground begins to loosen. Because if everything is equally valid, how do we confront harm? How do we choose a direction? How do we build anything coherent?
At that point, multidimensionality stops being a framework and becomes an atmosphere that is thick, expansive, but difficult to move within. Imagine it, you can breathe in it, but you cannot walk.
The Paradox of Perspective
To understand this more clearly, we must separate what is often collapsed.
A perspective has at least two dimensions:
- Its existence: the fact that it reveals something about reality
- Its consequences: the kind of world it produces when lived
Multidimensionality, as I understand it, speaks first to existence. Every perspective emerges from a context, reveals a layer and holds a fragment of reality.
Get Patrick Odimnfe’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
No perspective is empty. But not every perspective is innocent. This is because once a perspective moves from thought into action, it begins to shape relationships, systems, possibilities and limits. And here, something else becomes necessary.
On the principle that that no perspective is superior, a colonizer, an oppressive system, an abuser, could argue that it therefore means that their perspective is valid and equal to that of the colonized, the oppressed and the abused.
No! that is a twist of premise and principle.
From Superiority to Consequence
The mistake I see is that we often than not attempt to find and position a perspective (our perspective) as superior. Instead of asking which perspective is superior? We might ask what does this perspective do?
This shift changes everything. It removes the need to rank perspectives in abstraction, while still allowing us to engage them critically. A perspective can expand life or constrain it, deepen relationship or fracture it, restore balance or produce extraction. These are not neutral outcomes.
So, while no perspective holds absolute authority over reality, every perspective remains accountable to reality.
The Fear of Structure
There is another layer to this hesitation. Through my experience, I observed that in decolonial work, structure often feels suspicious. This is because we have seen what rigid systems can do. They flatten complexity, impose uniformity and erase difference.
So, we resist anything that resembles hierarchy or fixed judgment. We fight for liberation of the body, mind and spirit by unconsciously aiming for non-structure. But in doing so, we risk dissolving the very ground we need to stand on, because without some form of structure and orientation, action becomes hesitant, language becomes impotent and practice becomes incoherent and inconsistent.
What we therefore need isn’t an absence of structure, but a different kind of structure. Ones that hold and raise our collective consciousness, and not suppress it.
Holding Without Closing
I keep revisiting indigenous knowledge systems because they have always navigated this tension. By not denying multiplicity, indigenous knowledge systems acknowledge that there are many forces at work, there are many interpretations of these forces are, and there many layers of existence working concurrently and in succession.
But they do not abandon direction either. They hold ethics, taboos, rituals and responsibilities.
These signposts in indigenous knowledge systems are not claims of superiority but ways of maintaining balance. Do you see the difference?
So perhaps multidimensionality must learn from this to not collapse into relativism, and to not harden into dogma, but to remain in a disciplined openness.
Reframing the Principle
The principle, as it stands, is not wrong, but it is incomplete when isolated. It needs to be understood with greater precision: no perspective is inherently superior in essence, but no perspective is beyond evaluation and scrutiny especially when put into action.
What I am simply saying is that no perspective owns reality, but every perspective participates in shaping it. And because of that, we must choose. And choose wisely.
The Work of Choosing
This is where the real work begins. To embrace multidimensionality is not just to see more. Such a position would create a person or people that are indecisive, unable to take action, and allow every train access.
To embrace multidimensionality is to develop the capacity to hold multiple truths and realities without collapsing into confusion; to evaluate without domination, and to choose without arrogance.
This is not easy work.
It requires a different kind of mental, emotional and spiritual discipline. Such discipline is not rooted in being certain that you’re (always) right, but in self-awareness and awareness of the mechanisms of our collective existence.
Embracing multidimensionality is a kind of thinking that is open, but not directionless; it is critical, but not dismissive; it is grounded, but not rigid.
A Closing Reflection
I’d leave you my reader with this — the second principle of multidimensionality unsettles. This unsettling, reveals an invitation. An invitation to move from philosophy into practice/action; from abstraction into consequence; and from multiplicity into responsibility.
So, the question is no longer Is any perspective superior?
But rather, how do we live, knowing that no perspective is final, and how are the choices we make each day shaping our world?
