Dear Sen
You write,
"Agreed. The difference is important. If the truth we grasp depends on
who we are, on contingent factors and on chance, then the truth is
not only relative in the sense of not-absolute, it is relative *to
the knower* and to the context, which means that, out of a vast sea
of truths, none or one or some are valid for us, at any one point.
This is far from saying that all opinions are equally valid - that is
a straw man argument. If relativism was that stupid, no-one would
argue for it, and a thinker of the stature of Shoghi Effendi would
not put it at the centre of his theology.
The relativism that you dismiss as a "straw man" is in fact the relativism
found in the works of Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault, Feyerabend and other
major postmodernist thinkers. Here is selection of statements that suffer
from the self-referential problem despite your claim that they wouldn't be
"stupid" enough to do so. I included Protagoras because he delineated the
fundamental relativist position in the 5th C BCE.
(1) Feyerabend: " "All methodologies have their limitations and the only
'rule' that survives is 'anything goes.'" (Against Method 5)
This speaks for itself: "anything goes."
(2) Protagoras: " The first explicit relativist is Protagoras, a philosopher
in the 5th century B.C.E. Athens, who declares "Man is the measure of all
things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not,
that they are not."" He also said that "things are to you as they appear to
you and to me such as they appear to me." ("Relativism and the Bahai
Writings")
Note the self-referential problem in his statements.
(3)Nietzsche: " What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms,
and anthropomorphisms-in short, a sum of human relations which have been
enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which
after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are
illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are;
metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have
lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins."
(Truth and Lie in the Extra Moral Sense)
This not only subverts itself but also denies the possibility of knowing
truth. He conflates the "will to truth" and the "will to power" (The Will to
Power, # 552) thereby making arbitrary force the determiner of truth. There
is no Archimedean standpoint from which we can decide what is true in and of
itself.
(4) Lyotard: ": "I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives."
Obviously this suffers self-referentiality problems since the statement
requires that we show incredulity towards Lyotard's own epistemological
metanarrative. He also objects to all binary oppositions (true/untrue etc)
forgetting that he has a binary opposition of his own - binary/non-binary.
Lyotard regards any attempt to assert that one view or 'fact' is truer than
any other as "terrorist" (The Postmodern Condition, 63). He also rejects
any suggestion that any view can be "privileged", i.e. can be a, Archimedean
point from which we can judge other viewpoints.
(5) Derrida: ""The play of the supplement is indefinite." Derrida makes
the same point by stating that "writing structurally carries within itself
(counts-discounts) the process of its own erasure and annulation. . ."
If these statements are true they also apply to Derrida's own statement -
and thus make it impossible to know what he actually means. We cannot know
the truth about this.
He also rejects the notion that any interpretation or interpreter can be
"privileged" i.e. the notion that there is a, Archimedean point which can
put an end to the deconstructive process and determine meaning.
(6)Foucault: " in a given period delimits in the totality of the experience
a field of knowledge, defines
the mode of being of the objects that appear in the field, provides
man's everyday
perception with theoretical powers, and defines the conditions in
which he can sustain
a discourse about things that is recognised to be true."
If truth can only be recognised through certain epistemes (similar to
Lyotard's metanarratives) then this also applies to Foucault's own
statements and books - and thus again launches us into an infinite regress.
According to Foucault we cannot judge between epistemes, i.e. there is no
neutral Archimedean point from which to judge. Like Derrida, Foucault,
Nietzsche, Feyerabend, and Rorty he denies privileged Archimedean viewpoint
on which to judge among various epistemes.
Thus, we can see that these thinkers did, indeed, fall into the
self-referentiality trap as well as into the trap of denying our ability to
decide on what is or is not actually true by denying an Archimedean or
privileged standpoint. They want to replace the concept of truth and
objectivity with something else or abandon it altogether, or in Rorty's
case, "with the desire for solidarity with that community." (Objectivity,
Relativism and Truth, 39).
You state,
" the truth is
not only relative in the sense of not-absolute, it is relative *to
the knower* and to the context,"
Here you yourself fall prey to the very stupidity you say no other
philosopher would fall prey to.
If truth is relative to the knower and context, and each knower is different
and thus, so is each context, then there are as many truths as there are
knowers. How can we distinguish the right ones from the errors (the Writings
emphatically distinguish the two) i.e. determine which ones are correct and
correspond to reality? What is the neutral Archimedean standpoint from which
we can make such determinations? According to this statement, there isn't -
and can't be - one.
Relativism explicitly denies that any such an Archimedean point exists - and
therefore cannot make any determination that any truths are correct and
others in error ,i.e. all are equally valid or invalid. We can only make
arbitrary choices - but there is no objective standard by which to make
them.
The Writings however maintain there is an Archimedean point from which to
choose - the revelation of Baha'u'llah which is privileged. Thus the
Writings are not relativist in either the traditional (Protagorean) or
postmodernist sense. They are able to identify in an absolute sense, the
"eternal verities" as well as what are the mere outer expressions and
"spurious" add-ons. They are able to tell us that certain views are "error":
"that you may acknowledge the truth that from time immemorial even unto
eternity the Almighty hath tried, and will continue to try, His servants, so
that **** light may be distinguished from darkness, truth from falsehood,
right from wrong, guidance from error**** happiness from misery, and roses
from thorns." (Bahá'u'lláh, The Kitab-i-Iqan 8)
There is no sign of relativism here. Notice as well the reference to eternal
truth, another concept that does not work with relativism.
You quote Shoghi Effendi:
"Its teachings
revolve around the fundamental principle that religious truth is not
absolute but relative, that Divine Revelation is progressive, not
final. Unequivocally and without the least reservation it proclaims
all established religions to be divine in origin, identical in their
aims, complementary in their functions, continuous in their purpose,
indispensable in their value to mankind." (Shoghi Effendi, The World
Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 57)
and write,
At the propositional level -- without considering the subject who is
perceiving and the civilization that is addressed -- it is not true
that the established religions are identical in their aims. But the
applicable concept of "truth" is subjective not propositional: truth
depends on the perceiver, as Baha'u'llah explains in the 7 valleys."
Shoghi Effendi didn't put an unqualified relativism at the centre of his
philosophy - this is where I think you and other misread him. The concept of
revealed absolute truth does not fit in with the notion that truth is merely
a subjective matter.
The passage you quote puts his words about "relative truth" in the context
of progressive revelation in which the "eternal verities" (the Guardian's
term) remain constant and the outer historical adaptations or expressions of
these truths change:
"He insists on the unqualified recognition of the unity of their purpose,
restates the eternal verities they enshrine, coordinates their functions,
distinguishes the essential and the authentic from the *nonessential* and
*spurious* in their teachings, separates the God-given truths from the
priest-prompted superstitions."(The Promised Day is Come 108)
Note how he mentions "unity of their purpose" in contradiction to your
statement that "it is not true that the established religions are identical
in their aims." In "God Passes By" he writes that Baha'u'llah "reaffirms
their common, their unchangeable and fundamental purpose"(Shoghi Effendi,
God Passes By 100)
RE the "7 Valleys": here is the relevant quote,
" Thus it hath been made clear that these stages depend on the vision of the
wayfarer. In every city he will behold a world, in every Valley reach a
spring, in every meadow hear a song." (28 - 29)
First, this does not say, as you claim, that "truth" is subjective not
propositional i.e. that "truth depends on the perceiver" in a general way.
The passage clearly refers to the stages of the process of going through the
7 valleys and is not, therefore, a general statement that truth is
subjective in any and all other situations.
Second, the passage means that the vision acquired by the wayfarer, i.e. the
visionary power, determines what stage s/he is at in going through the 7
valleys. However, nothing says or suggests that anything and everything we
might subjectively see is true - or even a part of this visionary journey.
Because the "stages depend on the vision" of the seeker, does not mean any
vision is automatically correct or valid simply because they are
subjectively held by the speaker.
Indeed, the immediately previous stanza warns against such subjectivism by
exhorting the speaker to "forsake the *inner land of unreality* for the true
station." (Footnote in text: "This refers to the Sufi idea of the inner
plane which compared to revealed truth is but unreal.)"
This passage clearly contrasts the real truth of revelation with the unreal
inner plane which we are exhorted to "forsake." IOW, the real truth and the
unreal subjective inner truth are not the same - which in any relativist
interpretation they must be. This is emphasised by the exhortation to "dwell
within the shadow of the tree of knowledge" i.e. the true, objective
knowledge revealed by the Manifestation with Whose teachings we must
harmonise our own vision.
Furthermore, this portion of the " 7 Valleys" explicitly rejects the concept
of the multiplicity of truths by telling us to "learn from the Master of
Love in the schoolhouse of *oneness*." Trutg, as the Writings tell us is one
and not multiple. (BWF 247).
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]
