On Nov 6, 2007 6:28 PM, Ian Kluge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Gilberto,
>
> You ask why extreme scepticism and relativism are untenable.
Sure. Personally I think skepticism is a natural default position and
in some ways it is really compelling. We don't really know *for sure*
that our various opinions about the world are true. As Descarte's
suggested, maybe there is a demon which is causing us to hallucinate
that we are who we think we are. Or in more contemporary times we can
suggest: Maybe we are all stuck in the Matrix? But for the most part,
taking a definitive position about ourselves or the world will require
a leap of faith.
> 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.
>
I think the above is a very interesting word game but ultimately it
doesn't prove what you want it to prove. For example, it is not clear
that one should be able to apply Aristotelian logic to statements
which are relatively true or relatively false.
Also, in your first example it seems as if you are saying that a
categorical statement which has counter-examples is relatively true
which doesn't make sense to me (I would just call those false).
> 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'?
I would also say in this case, it takes more than a word-game to
refute skepticism as such. I think typically what one can do is
consider the various potential sources of knowledge (senses, memory,
"intuition", logic, etc.) and look at whether they can provide
certainty. If these various sources are found wanting, then it would
make sense to say skepticism is correct.
>
> Taken at face value, deconstruction makes communication impossible since the
> consistent application of deconstruction subverts all attempts to make
> meaningful statements.
Now I'm not sure how to parse what you are saying. I thought your
point was "If deconstructionism is true, then communication is
impossible. But since people obviously communicate, then
deconstructionism must be false". Is that what you are saying? If not,
then what was your point with the above statement?
If so, then the point of the Japanese restaurant example was to show
how even if communication might be problematic, we still manage to get
by. So "communicate" is not a matter of either/or.
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.
So what are you trying to say? You are sounding like you believe in
deconstructionism, now.
> 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.
I'm not trying to show that communication "on deconstructionist terms"
is possible. I was trying to reconcile the very clear and obvious
empirical fact that people actually do manage to communicate, with
deconstructionist claims that texts are subject to multiple
interpretations.
-G
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]
