Dear Sen,
You write,
> IOW, relativism does not allow us to distinguish among truth claims,
> i.e. to sort out the true, from false, from more or less probable -
> since every viewpoint is dependent on time, place, culture and the
> specific individual's position." If we can't make valid judgments
> among truth claims, then inevitably, "everything goes."
That's elementary bad reasoning.
If each truth is relative to place time culture and knower, then for
each knower at a particular time-place-culture, only *some* things
(and maybe none) are true. Since no person can have the capacity for
absolute truth, and be living in every time-place-culture, there is
no person for whom "everything goes."
Nice try . . . but . . .
If "each truth is relative to time place and knower" then each knower will
have his own truth - and perhaps reject the truths of other knowers who have
their own truth relative to their time, place and personal being or
subjectivity.
Since we cannot judge among views because all our views are relative to our
own time, place and ourselves, we have no neutral ground or Archimedean
standpoint from which to judge among views. Since we have no neutral
Archimedean standpoint, we cannot make definitive judgments about which
views are wrong - but only about which views are *wrong for us*, and *right
for us."
"Everything goes" refers to the belief that we have no neutral Archimedean
standpoint from which to make definitive judgments about statements, and
therefore cannot reject any of them as 'wrong': "everything goes", all
viewpoints must be accepted at par.
No human being can sincerely hold all possible viewpoints - but we can
maintain an attitude that all viewpoints are possible and that we cannot
make definitive choices.
You write,
"However, what the Bahai faith teaches is not that every truth is
relative, but that all religious truth is relative, not absolute.
This itself is true in relation to the framework of Bahai belief: it
may or may not transpose into other frameworks. As a more modest
claim, the philosophical critique of relativism (which is weak in
itself) does not touch it. When Shoghi Effendi refers to "the
fundamental principle that religious truth is not absolute but
relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not final" he is
laying down a doctrine, not engaging in a philosophical debate. To
put this in the same box as philosophical relativism -- or a
caricature of it -- and then shoot it down with philosophy simply
misses the point, even if the argument against philosophical
relativism was philosophically sound."
I'm not shooting down Shoghi Effendi's argument - I aiming squarely at those
who think that this statement espouses unqualified relativism. IOW, I think
people are misinterpreting the Guardian because his statement refers to
progressive revelation and the distinction between the "eternal verities"
and their superficial historically conditioned presentations. I have
explained all this in detail before and don't need to go through it again.
Shoghi Effendi, IMO, is not espousing relativism as usually understood,
especially in these postmodernist times, when relativism has become the
philosophical flavour of the day.
Nor is reading the Writings philosophically illegitimate: like any text,
They both explicitly express and implicitly exemplify answers to certain
philosophical questions.
You write,
"The truths we can communicate and apprehend are relative to
particular fields and contexts.
Here's another one of those self-undermining statements. If this statement
is true, it is true only in its particular context and field - which means
that in a different field and context, the contrary view can be true.
Moreover, since truth is context and field dependent, we have no neutral,
Archimedean standpoint to judge whether or not any view is actually true.
If they are all true (in their field and context) then indeed, 'everything
goes."
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]
