Dear people, watching the discussion on relativism, I thought some of you may be interested in
*Moral Relativism* by Steven Lukes - just published. A good review in THES by Robert Segal: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405451&c=1 best Tom Corby Simon Biggs wrote: > But I am a relativist and happy to defend it ;) > > I am also a sceptic and a nihilist (in the precise sense of the term). > Any specific position, such as humanism or socialism, any particular > theism, involves a belief system of some kind. This removes one’s > capacity to consider everything as up for grabs... > > As an artist I feel obliged to question everything. The main fault in > Rob’s argument is that it is premised on moral absolutism...at its > centre there stands a sacred cow. > > I haven’t seen all the details of the original call to protest against > Bloomberg. However, I think he is a valid target. There are also other > valid targets. Tony Blair’s work as a so-called mediator in the > Middle-East has been so biased he should also be a target – although > I’d like to see him done for war-crimes elsewhere first. After that we > can throw the book at him for his current hypocrisy. > > Regards > > Simon > > > On 20/2/09 18:32, "mark cooley" <flawed...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Do you know what a "straw man" argument is? > > It's where someone argues > > against a caricature of someone else's argument rather > > than against > > that argument itself. You are doing that here. > > You replied to Simon's criticism of your claim to know truth and > your reaction was against relativism NOT in support of your claim > to know truth, but to attack relativism. Simon never brought up > relativism. That's the straw man you've put up! Defend your own > argument that somehow you have access to absolute truth rather > than bashing Simon for something that he didn't say. Simon wasn't > making a case for relativism he was questioning absolute truth. > That is not the same thing. One can not believe in absolute truth > and also NOT be a relativist. It's easy. Much of so-called > postmodern theory explains the basis for this quite well. You want > names of authorities - I could list them all day - what difference > would it make? You'd just quote others to refute it. What's the > point? It's clear we have different values on these issues. > > > > > Simon Biggs > Research Professor > edinburgh college of art > s.bi...@eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk > www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ > > si...@littlepig.org.uk > www.littlepig.org.uk > AIM/Skype: simonbiggsuk > > Edinburgh College of Art (eca) is a charity registered in Scotland, number > SC009201 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list NetBehaviour@netbehaviour.org http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
