To doubt the accepted position in such a climate would immediately place one under tremendous pressure to comply with a philosophical consensus which claims that there exists no serious alternative to its point of view. The dissenter in this climate is seen by others, and often by himself as well, as a betrayer of the truth. There are other historical periods which are characterized, instead, by a philosophical anarchy. These are generations of ideological chaos in which a wild, uncontrolled marketplace of opinions exists. The danger in such a period is not of dogmatism, as in the former case, but rather of relativism.
All positions hold equal weight, and as a result no one position possesses true meaning or value.
The former pair were faced with a dogmatic philosophical approach, whereas Rav Sa'adia Gaon, who preceded them chronologically, responded to a culture in which many philosophical positions contended for the truth, creating a cacophony of ideological claims. Rav Sa'adia Gaon introduces us to an entire gallery of characters which includes among others, the atheist, the polytheist, and the pantheist. In contrast, Rav Yehuda Halevi presents us with a single philosopher who proposes a clear, official, socially accepted opinion with which we must contend. Every student approaches the Kuzari against the backdrop of his own generation and cultural climate. We continually face new intellectual crossroads and debate the various options.