Dear Gilberto, You ask why extreme scepticism and relativism are untenable. To answer that, I'd have to reproduce my entire paper on "Relativism and the Baha'i Writings" and "Postmodernism and the Baha'i Writings" (Irfan Colloquium)delivered at the Louhelen Irfan Conference this October and Bosch in May. Email me privately and I will send you a copy: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why is relativism untenable (even Rorty doesn't want to be called a relativist since, as he says it's a nonsensical position)? Take the following statement: 'There is no such thing as absolute truth.' This undermines and refutes itself i.e. is a self-refuting proposition. If the statement is true, then there is at least one statement that is absolutely true - thereby refuting itself. However, if it is not true, there must be at least one statement that is absolutely true - thereby refuting the statement itself. Or the following (the converse of the previous example): 'All truth is relative.' If it is true, then even this statement is relative - and thus leaves open the possibility of a truth being absolute: this undermines the original statement. If it is false, i.e. only some truth is relative, then we still have the possibility of at least one absolute truth - in which case the statement is refuted. In regards to scepticism we get similar situations. Take the statement that 'The truth is unknowable to man.' How can we know if this statement is true since 'The truth is unknowable to man'? The statement undermines and refutes itself. Likewise if a sceptic says 'There is no such thing as truth.' Is this statement true? If it is true, it refutes itself and there is at least one absolute truth. If it is not true, obviously . . . These are only a few samples of the difficulties that make scepticism and relativism logically untenable. As noted they also lead to serious ontological and ethical dilemma. Taken at face value, deconstruction makes communication impossible since the consistent application of deconstruction subverts all attempts to make meaningful statements. Your solution (in the Japanese restaurant) doesn't work, as I showed since on deconstructionist principles you don't even know what you want there: any statement of meaning or intention subverts itself. The "rare outcomes" you mention don't show that communication is possible on deconstructionist terms but rather that at some point people arbitrarily stop the process of self-subversion and designate a certain meaning as final. But deconstructionism is opposed to that - and thinks doing is done for 'political' purposes. As to a consensus of experts - I agree it's not a solution although Rorty thinks it is. That's why I brought it up. You write, " And I would argue that taking deconstructionism to far out extremes becomes a straw dog argument." If you had read any deconstructionist books you would know these are not straw man arguments but simple application of the principles explicitly stated and championed by the deconstructionists themselves. Derrida showed them at work most plainly in his defence of his Belgian Nazi friend De Man's anti-semitic articles. Read "Of Grammatology", "Writing and Difference" and "Disseminations" by Derrida. Best wishes, Ian Kluge -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gilberto Simpson Sent: November 6, 2007 11:55 AM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: Deconstructionism On 11/6/07, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Gilberto, > > RE: > > > How could we know they are "good guesses" i.e. guesses at least somewhat > > close to the truth, if we do not know what the truth is - or even worse, > do > > not believe that there is a truth to know in the first place? > > > > All we get here is an endless quagmire to guesses . . . > > > > you write, > > "Well, we can still get minimally satisfactory outcomes even if we > don't have reliable unambiguous communication. For example, suppose > you don't know Japanese and you are in a Japanese restaurant where > they don't speak English. You could point and and wave and gesture and > probably get something to eat even you don't really understand the > menu and the waiters don't perfectly understand what you want." > > This is Rorty's 'solution' - but that doesn't solve the problem because > there is no way to definitively determine what "minimally satisfactory" > actually means - I'm not sure what you mean by "solve the problem". Richard had previously asked the question of whether deconstructionism implies communication is impossible. All I'm saying is that the above hypothetical situation is an example of ambiguous communication which still yields satisfactory results (where in this example, "satisfactory" means... more or less... that you have gotten some food at the restaurant). > > You might also get them to boot you out or call the police, or, if you point > to a menu, they might think you're a mental patient who steals menus from > restaurants - or maybe just wants to stand there holding one menu while he > blisses out in another dimension. > Sure. The fact that those outcomes are possible seems to lend some weight to deconstructionism. And the fact that those outcomes are rare suggests that in spite of a certain amount of ambiguity, some limited communication is still possible. > Common sense tells us we have to stop interpreting at some point - but this > point is purely arbitrary and is not available to deconstructionism, i.e. a > deconstructionist could starve to death in a restaurant if he applies > Derrida's principles. > > That is why, in his last redoubt, Rorty holed up in the position that > "consensus" was the only way to avoid deconstructionism's extraordinary > difficulties on this issue. This "consensus" could be the consensus of > experts, as well as (and he says this) nice progressive liberals like > himself whose greatest horror is causing pain to anyone. > But then the question of who is or isn't an expert is going to be a political question just like the deconstructionists suggest, no? > You write, > > "Or for a different example, which I wouldn't necessarily endorse as > true, but it works as an example... consider the book Men are from > Mars, Women are from Venus. Men and women obviously manage to > communicate well enough in an everyday sense, But in another sense, > there are still some limitations and ambiguities which lead to > communication problems." > > Here you illustrate what I said before: if we try to salvage some > commonsense from deconstructionism, we get nothing new, platitudes, - and > there was no need to write books about it; nor was there any reason for all > the intellectual excitement. If I wrote a book to explain that men and women > sometimes misunderstand each other, no one would invite me to lecture at > Harvard or Princeton . . . Derrida's writings clearly indicate that this > kind of platitude is not what he means. Again, I was trying to address Richard's question of how communication isn't totally impossible even if meanings are ambiguous. And I would argue that taking deconstructionism to far out extremes becomes a straw dog argument. > > Deconstructionism only becomes intellectually exciting when we take it at > face value, when it seems to say something radical - but then it turns out > to lead to nonsense as illustrated above. See the Sokal hoax for a > confirmation. I like the whole Sokol hoax story but I would draw different implications from it. For me it says that literary critics should stick to literature and stay away from physics. And it also draws into question the peer review process which is applied by a variety of academic journals. But I've also known engineers and natural scientists who have also been critical of the peer review process. I think Sokol provided a sobering and persuasive corrective to certain intellectual trends. But I don't think he proved that all of deconstructionism should be demonized. > > Something a commonplace as 'men and women sometimes misunderstand each > other' is not deconstructionism's point. Its point is that all communication > is inherently problematic and ultimately, impossible since every statement > is subject to endless self-subversion. > > You write, > > "I guess I would want want to inject the comment that I'm willing to > believe Derrida and the postmodernists are not morons. So whatever > they mean when talking about the problems of reading a text, it > probably includes our everyday experiences of going out in the world, > talking to people, and receiving what we think of as reasonable > behavioral responses much of the time." > > As individuals Derrida and the postmodernists are not morons, but as > philosophers they have trapped themselves in a position that leads to wholly > untenable consequences, i.e. extreme scepticism and relativism in > epistemology, ontology and ethics. > Why are those positions untenable? > A real example in regards to ethics. Derrida's good friend and fellow > deconstructionist, Paul de Man, was a member of the Belgian Nazis in WW 2 > and published numerous articles against Jews and advocated their elimination > from Belgium. Derrida used deconstructionist methods to 'prove' that these > articles were actually cleverly disguised works of resistance and protest, > i.e. he deconstructed the articles to show they supposedly meant the > opposite of what they clearly said. IOW, ethically, deconstruction as a > method of analysing discourse/action can make anything - anti-semitism - > into anything else - philojudaism - i.e. turn Mother Teresa into Dr. Mengele > and vice versa. That's relativism with a vengeance and is dangerous to say > the least. Derrida was clearly not thinking about what happens to his > philosophy when he went into the world. > > > Scepticism and relativism (see my "Relativism and the Baha'i Writings") are > so problematic that they have never gained a foothold in philosophy despite > periodic resurgences - after which they fall back into the shadows. > > Best wishes, > > Ian Kluge > > > > > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. > > > __________________________________________________ > > > You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st > Baha'i Studies is available through the following: > Mail - mailto:[email protected] > Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st > News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st > Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist > Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] > -- Gilberto Simpson Program Coordinator, Miami Young People's Project 734-709-4921 (cell) __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:[email protected] Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
