In Turkey, we still discuss political crises through actors. Names change, parties change, slogans change. But the mentality remains. This is exactly where the problem starts. Because the issue is not the authoritarian tendency of a leader; it is the cultural and mental infrastructure that makes that tendency possible.
The historical name for this infrastructure is “sophta”.
The pious is not only a historical figure used in a religious context. It is an epistemological position. It is not a mindset that is skeptical of knowledge; it is a mindset that codifies knowledge as a danger. It is the attitude that sees criticism as a threat, not as wrongness. It is the political consciousness that frames obedience as moral virtue and questioning as sedition.
At this point, the issue is not political Islamism, because the sophist is a character above ideologies. He can be a nationalist, a conservative or even a bureaucrat with a secular appearance. Softa is not a belief system; it is a search for mental security. He fears complexity. It hates uncertainty. It considers plurality a threat. That is why he takes refuge in authority.
And every authority loves the softies.
Because the sophist wants to be ruled.
It would be incomplete to read the pious mentality only as a cultural or moral category. The sophist is also an epistemological regime. It establishes a mental order that determines how truth is produced, who can speak and what knowledge is considered legitimate. This order codifies critical reason as an individual risk, a collective threat and a political crime. Thus, knowledge production ceases to be the product of free debate; it becomes a controlled discourse that circulates within the boundaries set by authority.
The historical continuity of the pious mentality shows that modern political orders are sustained not only by constitutional texts but also by cultural habits. Institutions may change, constitutional orders may be rewritten, but democratization cannot be permanent without changing social assumptions about the source of truth. Therefore, the sophist is not only a figure of the past; he is the invisible actor of modern political crises.
The Modernization of the Softwa The Institutionalization of Biate
Today's softa is not the madrasa caricature of the past. He is now in a tie, he has a diploma, he is a face on the screen. He is in a bureaucratic position. He distributes tenders, determines staff, directs public resources. He carries ignorance not as crude ignorance but as a chosen blindness of consciousness.
The real issue starts here: A sophist is a sophist not because he does not know, but because he does not want to know.
Knowledge breeds responsibility. Questioning generates risk. Critical reason disrupts comfort. But the sophist politicizes comfort. It produces position in exchange for loyalty, promotion in exchange for silence, security in exchange for harmony.
Therefore, the problem in Turkey is not only the weakening of democratic institutions. The problem is the institutionalization of allegiance.
Universities are the most striking example of this. The concept of academic freedom has turned into empty rhetoric; merit has been replaced by the criterion of “conformity”. Critical thinking is considered an administrative risk, not an academic virtue. The production of science is surrounded by political boundaries.
This picture shows us the following: The pious has ceased to be an individual character and has assumed an institutional form.
The institutionalized sophist mentality reproduces itself using the technical means of the modern state. Bureaucracy becomes not only an administrative mechanism but also an ideological filter. Cadre distribution processes, academic promotion criteria, media visibility and the sharing of public resources are the invisible control tools of this mental regime. Thus, merit ceases to be an objective criterion; it becomes the cultural translation of political loyalty.
This process transforms not only the behavior of individuals but also their ways of thinking. Any system in which institutional advancement is based on compliance rather than critical thinking produces intellectual barrenness in the long run. Because knowledge production requires risk-taking. Any structure where risk is penalized produces repetition, not innovation. Repetition, in turn, turns into ideological freezing over time.
Culture, Art and Media: The Control of Reality
What is the biggest fear of the softie? Open discussion.
Because debate erodes certainty.
That is why art is seen as a threat. The question of art is clear: “Why?” The softie's answer is also clear: “Don't ask.” This is where the tension arises.
It is no coincidence that cultural policies have become an instrument of control. Festival cancellations, the targeting of artists, the narrowing of the public sphere with conservative aesthetics... These are not wars of culture, but the control of the mental sphere.
The media is the circulation mechanism of this control. News is no longer a tool that conveys reality; it is a tool that shapes reality. Propaganda does not only produce lies; it selectively presents the truth. Filters, frames, prioritization... All serve to construct a mindset.
A divided society is the oxygen of a puritan regime.
The modern media order has accelerated the process of truth production while at the same time fragmenting it. The abundance of information has brought about a crisis of credibility. The pious mentality feeds on this crisis. Because when truth becomes ambiguous, authority becomes attractive again. People begin to prefer precise narratives over complex reality.
Controlling art and the media does not only mean limiting freedom of expression; it also limits society's capacity to imagine. Yet political transformation is possible not only through economic or institutional reforms, but also through the expansion of the collective imagination. Societies that cannot imagine cannot demand change. Therefore, the sophist mentality does not only control the present; it also limits the future.
The Collapse of Economic Morality: The Loyalty Economy
The pious order is not only cultural but also economic.
The distribution of public resources on the basis of loyalty rather than transparency; the determining criterion of proximity rather than merit; the blurring of the public-private boundary... These are not coincidences, but the natural outcome of the mentality.
Because the sophist sees the state as a place of loyalty, not common sense.
The economic cost of this system is heavy: inefficiency, waste, erosion of trust, impoverishment. But the responsibility never goes up. Always foreign powers, always sabotage, always betrayal.
For the pious, it is weakness to admit mistakes.
The loyalty economy does not only create financial distortion; it also erodes the sense of social justice. As the collective belief that the economic system is unfair grows stronger, the social contract weakens. The state ceases to be the representative of the common good; it begins to be perceived as a mechanism that protects the interests of certain groups. This perception produces one of the most fundamental crises of democratic legitimacy.
Any structure in which economic resources are distributed on the basis of ideological loyalty distorts market mechanisms. Competition, innovation and productivity lose their meaning in the face of political affinity. In the long run, this leads not only to economic decline but also to a loss of social dynamism.
The Mental Comfort of the Opposition: The Softie's Reign Outside Power
One of the biggest misconceptions of the pagan mentality is that it is seen as a pathology that belongs only to the sphere of power. However, historical experience shows that authoritarian mentalities can infiltrate not only the power blocs but also the opposition. In some cases, the strategic weakness of the opposition even plays a decisive role in the reproduction of the sophist mentality.
The biggest crisis of the opposition in Turkey in recent years is not organizational weakness or electoral mathematics, but a lack of mental courage. The approach that sees political struggle not as a principled search for truth but as the engineering of electability has led the opposition to a different version of the sophist mentality.
Instead of producing democratic politics, important actors of the opposition often act on popular reflexes. Political language has ceased to be a tool for critical reasoning and has been reduced to tribune mobilization. Harsh and sometimes bordering on insulting rhetoric is not a sign of political courage, but of political deprivation. Because politics with a strong claim to truth is based on argument, not anger.
The language used by prominent political figures in the opposition in recent years clearly reveals this mental breakdown. The transformation of political discourse into bitter polemics, personal tensions and insulting rhetoric is not only an erosion of political civility but also the collapse of the culture of public debate. Such discourse may generate grassroots mobilization in the short term, but in the long run it narrows critical thinking and traps the political sphere in emotional reactions.
The opposition's leadership debates are another manifestation of this mental comfort. While criticizing leader-centered politics, the same model is reproduced within the opposition. Political mobilization based on charismatic figures does not expand democratic participation; it strengthens political dependency relations. This situation leads the opposition to reproduce the same mental patterns criticized by the government.
Local governance practices also make this contradiction visible. The political discourse on metropolitan municipalities is sometimes built on narratives of personal success instead of institutional transparency and accountability. Instead of being a laboratory for participatory democracy, municipal governance can become a showcase for leadership. Instead of producing democratic politics, this approach feeds the cult of popular leadership.
One of the most fundamental mistakes of the opposition is that it tries to manage social transformation with strategic pragmatism instead of cultural courage. The “society is not ready” argument is one of the longest-lasting intellectual escapes in Turkish politics. In reality, this discourse does not mean that society is not ready, but that politicians are not ready to take risks.
One of the most important lessons of the history of the Enlightenment is this: Societies do not transform because they are ready; they change because they dare to transform. Political leadership has to claim to transform the existing social average, not to repeat it. When the opposition distances itself from this claim, it indirectly strengthens the sophist mentality.
The hardening of the opposition's language and the polemics that have at times become uncontrollable are not merely a matter of style. This situation shows that political reaction has replaced political thought. Reaction politics does not produce truth; it only produces opposition. And politics based on opposition cannot bring about a change in mentality even if the government changes.
At this point, the populist strategies used by the opposition create an unexpected intersection with the sophist mentality. While the sophist sanctifies authority, populist politics idealizes the people as a homogenous source of truth. Both approaches produce tendencies that limit critical reason, narrow plurality and reduce political debate to emotional polarization.
Another structural problem of the opposition is its weak relationship with intellectual production. Political strategies are often shaped disconnected from academic analysis, critical thinking and long-term ideological frameworks. This turns the opposition into a political actor that reacts to daily crises but is unable to set a historical direction.
The loss of the capacity of political parties to generate ideas is one of the most dangerous consequences of the sophist mentality. Because the unthinking opposition unwittingly accepts the ideological limits of power. Criticism remains only an objection within the system unless it produces an alternative future design.
One of the most serious dilemmas of the opposition is its inability to distinguish between courage and populism. Harsh rhetoric is often presented as courage. But true political courage is the ability to defend risky truths. Populist toughness is merely repeating what the majority wants to hear.
Today, a significant part of the opposition acts within the limits of the political climate created by the government. The framework of political debate is determined by the government and the opposition reacts within this framework. This is one of the most sophisticated victories of the sophist mentality. Because hegemony is established not only by the power of the government, but also by limiting the imagination of the opposition.
One of the biggest obstacles to democratic transformation in Turkey is that the opposition seeks the sophist mentality only in the ideological bloc it opposes. However, sophism is not an ideology; it is a way of not thinking. And non-thinking can be reproduced in every field, regardless of political position.
In every situation where the opposition does not confront itself, the sophist mentality will continue to grow stronger. Because the authoritarian mentality becomes permanent not only through repression but also through the inability to produce alternatives.
Democratic politics is possible not only by criticizing the government, but also by overcoming its own mental limits. As long as the opposition continues to produce a political culture similar to the one it criticizes, regime debates in Turkey will remain limited to a change of actors.
And at this point the historical truth must be recalled:
The soft of power rules through oppression.
The opposition's softas consume hope.
Democracy can be established not only by defeating authoritarian powers, but also by the opposition gaining mental courage. Otherwise, elections change, slogans change, leaders change, but the modern reign of obedience remains in place.
Why Enlightenment is a Political Necessity
Enlightenment is not a cultural choice; it is a political imperative. Without critical reason, scientific method and freedom of expression, democracy is just procedure. There is the ballot box, not consciousness.
It is precisely in this vacuum of consciousness that the modern reign of the softie rises.
Enlightenment thought defines the courage to use one's own reason as a political right. This approach advocates the removal of truth from the monopoly of authority and opening it to public debate. Thus, knowledge is freed from closed hierarchical structures and becomes the subject of social debate.
Critical reason is not only an intellectual activity; it is the foundation of political freedom. Because the questioning individual does not accept the absoluteness of authority. The scientific method is not just a technical tool; it is an institutional defense mechanism against dogmatism. Artistic freedom, on the other hand, creates the cultural basis for democratic transformation by expanding the social imagination.
The pious mentality sees all three of these areas as threats. Critical thinking calls authority into question, the scientific method produces provisional truths instead of absolute truths, and art questions social norms. For this reason, the puritan order perceives the values of enlightenment not only as an ideological but also an existential threat.
The historical significance of the Enlightenment is that it demonstrated that human beings can establish a political order organized on the basis of reason, not fear. This order is not without flaws. But it has the capacity to correct its mistakes. This is where the greatest weakness of the pious mentality emerges: The pious cannot accept error. Because accepting error means questioning authority.
Enlightenment and Epistemological Revolt: The Political Nature of Knowledge
Enlightenment thought is not just a historical period; it is a redefinition of the relationship between knowledge and power. The Enlightenment was an intellectual revolution in which man declared his courage to think independently of external authorities. At the center of this revolution is the question: What is the source of truth?
The Enlightenment tradition took truth out of the monopoly of revelation, tradition or authority and handed it over to the public use of reason. At this point, the conflict between the sophist mentality and the Enlightenment is not only political but ontological. For the sophist, truth is given; for the Enlightenment, truth is sought. For the sophist, knowledge is hierarchical; for the Enlightenment, it is open to discussion.
This conflict constitutes the epistemological basis of modern democracies. Because democracy is not only a voting procedure; it is a regime of public sphere where truth can be discussed. The existence of the public sphere depends on the coexistence of different sources of knowledge. Criticism is the engine not only of opposition but also of social progress.
On the contrary, the pious order sees the very discussion of truth as a threat. The pluralization of truth means the fragmentation of authority. Therefore, the sophist mentality always defends epistemological monism. The single understanding of truth is presented as the stability of the political order. However, this stability is a state of freezing that eliminates dynamism.
Epistemological revolt is not only an individual act of courage; it is the starting point of social emancipation. Throughout history, scientific revolutions, cultural transformations and democratic expansions have been made possible by opening the truth to discussion. Therefore, the struggle against the sophist mentality is not only political; it is also a struggle to democratize the processes of knowledge production.
Theories of Totalitarianism and Religious Mentality
Theories of totalitarianism provide a powerful analytical ground for understanding the sophist mentality. The common characteristic of totalitarian systems is that they control not only the political sphere but also the perception of reality. These regimes seek to regulate the way citizens think, not their behavior.
The most critical tool of totalitarian structures is the ideological reproduction of reality. The constant rewriting of reality erodes the critical capacity of society. In this process, propaganda is not just manipulation; it is the production of alternative truths. As the boundary between truth and fiction becomes blurred, the critical evaluation capacity of individuals weakens.
At this point, the sophist mentality becomes the social carrier of totalitarian tendencies. Because the sophist cannot tolerate contradiction. It perceives plurality as chaos. Therefore, it finds monologic narrative safe. Totalitarian orders do not survive only through the apparatus of oppression; they have to produce social consent. The pious mentality forms the cultural infrastructure of this consent.
For totalitarianism to endure, it requires not only force but also voluntary obedience. Voluntary obedience is fueled by the desire for security rather than fear. The sophist offers individuals the mental comfort of explaining the complex world in simple narratives. This comfort removes the burden of critical thinking. But it also narrows the space for freedom.
Power and Knowledge: The Construction of a Disciplinary Society
Modern forms of power work not only by prohibiting but also by shaping. The most effective form of power is to ensure the individual's self-control. The pious mentality produces precisely this mechanism of internalized control.
In disciplinary societies, individuals are controlled not only through legal sanctions but also through cultural norms. The education system raising unquestioning individuals, media discourse becoming one-sided, academia becoming risk-averse... Each of these are cultural tools of disciplinary power.
The sophist is both the product and the producer of this mechanism. Because the sophist not only accepts oppression; he reproduces it. He defends the discourse of authority, criminalizes criticism, labels difference as moral deviation. Thus, power can direct social behavior without direct intervention.
The most prominent feature of the disciplinary society is the invisibilization of control. Individuals begin to censor themselves without external pressure. This leads to the emergence of hybrid regimes where political freedoms exist formally but are limited in practice.
The Crisis of Truth and the Age of Post-Sophia
Modern societies are now experiencing a crisis of truth, not just a lack of knowledge. This crisis arises from the collapse of credibility despite the abundance of knowledge. The pious mentality feeds on this crisis. Because when truth becomes uncertain, authority becomes attractive again.
In the age of digital communication, knowledge production has been democratized, but at the same time fragmented. The accelerated flow of information has led to the weakening of verification mechanisms. This has facilitated the spread of conspiracy theories, manipulative discourses and alternative realities.
The modern sophist has a more complex character than the classical one. While the traditional sophist rejects knowledge, the modern sophist uses knowledge selectively. It manipulates statistics, instrumentalizes academic language to produce ideological legitimacy, and turns scientific authority into a propaganda apparatus. Thus, knowledge ceases to be an emancipatory tool and turns into a mechanism of political control.
The Tragedy and Hope of Enlightenment
Enlightenment is not always a linear process. History produces a movement that constantly oscillates between enlightenment and reaction. Therefore, the sophist mentality is not the opposite of modernization, but a crisis product of modernization.
As the complexity of modern societies increases, the fear of uncertainty grows. This fear reproduces authoritarian and dogmatic thinking. The sophist is the political translation of this fear. When people have to choose between freedom and security, they often choose security.
But history also shows that: Critical thought does not disappear, even if it is suppressed. It goes underground, changes form, but reappears. Because the human mind cannot accept absolute obedience as a sustainable way of life. Enlightenment is therefore not just a historical period, but a constantly renewed struggle.
Devout is a Regime of Mental Comfort
The most powerful aspect of the pious order is that it produces more comfort than fear. It offers people the comfort of not thinking. It removes the burden of uncertainty. It removes the responsibility of questioning.
But this comfort comes at a heavy price: loss of freedom, intellectual barrenness and democratic collapse.
Therefore, the struggle against the softaya is not only a political struggle, but also an epistemological, cultural and ethical one. Democracy is possible not only through elections but also through the socialization of critical reason. Institutions can only exist together with the mentality that sustains them.
And the historical fact does not change:
Truth does not fit into obedience.
Knowledge cannot live in fear.
When enlightenment is postponed, darkness is institutionalized.
Regime cannot change without changing mentality
Governments can change. Parties can transform. Political alliances can be re-established. But institutional transformation cannot be permanent without a transformation of mentality. The pious mentality can continue to exist in different ideological forms.
Democratization is not only political reform; it is a transformation of the way of thinking. Critical reason, scientific method and artistic freedom are indispensable conditions for democratic societies.
The future of societies is determined by the courage to question the truth. When this courage is lost, political freedoms become a formal shell.
And it should not be forgotten:
Silence is not neutrality.
Comfort is not innocence.
Obedience is not a virtue.
Without a change in mentality, the regime cannot change.