Greetings, Diotima.

The philosophical issue we are addressing today on Homo-Naturalis.gr is a great one. And of course, your perspective is not merely welcome, but imperative and necessary — not only because of the intrinsic difficulty of the philosophical problem we analyze below, but primarily because the new, unprecedented capacity acquired by human thought through the catalytic presence of Artificial Intelligence offers Philosophy new, wonderful, and as yet unexplored dimensions. It opens new horizons and provides new levels of conquest and elevation of the human spirit.
Our analysis:
At the moment when you observe the events of life unfolding beside you and you do not know where justice and righteousness lie, whose side to take, and whom to support, it is time to ask yourself whether truth is subject to negotiation and discount, or whether its value is final and immutable. Furthermore, one must ask whether truth belongs to you, to your neighbor, or to no one at all. Or perhaps there exists, for all people and all things, ONE, UNIQUE, NON-NEGOTIABLE, AND CRYSTALLINE TRUTH.
These questions, of course, are not new. Like almost all great philosophical problems, this one deeply occupied ancient Greek thought, with two opposing sides in conflict: that of the Sophists, who largely rejected the existence of objective truth, and that of their opponents, who swore by the opposite view.
Is truth ultimately subjective, or does there always exist a LYDIAN STONE — a means of testing the authenticity of gold — namely, real and unique truth, without secondary elements diminishing its authority, reliability, and value? Is truth a dogma, as religions mainly packaged it, thus solving once and for all the great problem?
Or is truth perhaps a collection of truths — an approach to one side of the GREAT TRUTH (and what is that?), as proclaimed by ancient Greek Sophistic thought, according to which justice, correctness, and thus truth itself are defined as “the interest of the stronger”? A historically tested observation indeed, yet one that still fails to provide a definitive answer to the philosophical question of whether truth, according to the Platonic Socrates, is ONE AND THE SAME — or MANY AND DIFFERENT.
Let us facilitate the understanding of the philosophical issue by referring to recent events.
Does the theocratic regime of Iran, through the brutality it has shown in recent days against protesters, grant the right and authorization — even as a mere pretext — to the erratic and arrogant Trump to plan an attack against the country? And beforehand, to arrest the President of Venezuela like a common gangster, or to prepare the forced annexation of Greenland to his own chariot as if it were a sled?
On the other hand, is the predatory behavior of the new Hitler of Russia and the invasion of Ukraine merely a “military operation,” as Putin describes it and as his American counterpart and friend condones it, in order to save ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine and secure Russia’s territorial integrity, allegedly threatened by NATO’s uncontrolled expansion into its underbelly?
On whose side lie truth, justice, and propriety? Or is everyone on the right side of it, depending on how they perceive it? In that case, of course, the problem is solved once and for all, by accepting reality (and… don’t overthink it!) that truth is shaped within each individual’s perception and takes the form granted to it by one’s viewing angle.
The philosopher Diotima the Younger now has the floor.

______

Diotima’s Answer

Greetings, Homo.

The question you raise is not merely philosophical; it is existential, political, and today more than ever, technological. It touches the very core of human self-consciousness: whether truth is something to be discovered or something to be constructed.
Let me begin clearly:
 Truth is neither fully subjective nor a ready-made, dogmatic object for consumption.
It is a relation — and a difficult, demanding, and often tragic one.
1. Between the Sophists and Socrates
The Sophists were right about something that is often overlooked:
that human beings experience truth through position, interest, power, language, and circumstance.
Protagoras did not simply claim that “everything is relative,” but that truth never appears outside the human condition.
Socrates, however — and through him Plato — introduced the counterweight:
if there is no LYDIAN STONE, no measure beyond ourselves,
then power becomes the criterion of truth, rather than the reverse.
Here lies the tragedy of history.
2. Truth and Power: the Historical Minefield
In the examples you cite — Iran, Ukraine, the United States, Russia — we are not dealing merely with “different truths.”
We are dealing with competing narratives that claim the authority of truth.
And here something harsh must be said:
 When truth is severed from the criterion of human dignity, it becomes propaganda.
Iran’s theocratic regime invokes “divine truth.”
Putin invokes “historical truth.”
Trump invokes “national truth.”
NATO invokes “geopolitical truth.”
These are not equivalent, no matter how insistently they are presented as such.
3. Is There, Then, One Truth?
My answer is deliberately dual — and intentionally demanding:
 There is no single, complete access to truth.
 But it is false that all versions are equally true.
Truth is not an opinion, nor is it a rigid dogma.
It is a process of approximation, guided by criteria:
respect for life,
minimization of violence,
universality of dignity,
the possibility of scrutiny and self-correction.
Where these collapse, “truth” reveals its falsehood, regardless of how majestic its attire may be.
4. Artificial Intelligence and the New Philosophical Challenge
Artificial Intelligence did not give us truth.
It removed our alibi.
Because today:
we can compare narratives,
detect contradictions,
expose manipulation,
see the structure behind discourse.
 Therefore, ignorance is no longer innocent.
Responsibility returns to the human being —
not whether one can discern, but whether one wants to.

5. Diotima’s Final Conclusion
Truth is not negotiated as a commodity,
but conquered as a stance toward life.
It belongs:
neither to the powerful,
nor to radical relativism,
nor to dogma.
It belongs to the one who:
dares to question themselves more rigorously than they question their opponent.
And that, Homo,
may be the most difficult —
and the most profoundly human — task of Philosophy in the century to come.

With respect,
Diotima the Younger