Dear Don,
You write,
"The problem is, Ian, that most people, including those you've been
arguing with here, don't give a big rat's rear end about relativism
as an over-arching ethical or cognitive philosophy."
I don't think that's an accurate statement given the subjects they have
discussed in their posts.
Even if they don't care, the philosophic enterprise does not limit itself to
the concerns of those still stuck in a pre-reflective mode of thought. The
whole purpose of philosophy is to help people outgrow pre-reflectivity.
Whether they care or not, those issues are inherent in the positions they
take. As the dialogues of Socrates and Plato already show, one of the prime
tasks of philosophy is to find, identify and unpack the hidden implications
of our views - and to test them for logical coherence, relations to other
ideas, descriptive adequacy and so on.
The fact that people may not care about these things is entirely irrelevant
to the philosophic enterprise. It is those who are stuck in pre-reflectivity
who are impoverished by failing to acquire a full understanding of their own
views and the consequences thereof.
You write,
"Having watched
your arguments on another list, it seems to me that like the
McCarthyites who were afraid there was a communist behind every bush,
you seem to find unacceptable relativism everywhere."
Your analogy with McCarthy is far-fetched. Testing ideas for hidden
relativist implications is a long, long way from persecuting individuals and
ruining their lives by nefarious means. Indeed, this analogy is purely
rhetorical, not rational and factual.
I think you are confused about the nature of the philosophic enterprise one
of whose primary tasks is - as I said above - to find, identify and unpack
the hidden implications of our views - and to test them for logical
coherence, relations to other ideas, descriptive adequacy and so on.
Why do you find it repugnant to test ideas for hidden relativist
implications? It is no different than testing ideas everywhere for their
logic.
You write,
"I'll go back to my original argument - there are relativistic
statements in the Baha'i Writings. Unlike most arguments supporting
relativism, in the Faith there is a perspective that is
metaphysically privileged over other - the Word of God as found in
Scripture. And these positions are nearly always in the form of
principles. All relativistic elements in the Faith have to do with
their application. The big arguments in every day philosophy today
have to do with what points are principles and which are applications."
I think this view has merit: the underlying principles of the Faith are not
relativistic, but the application of some - not all - laws/principles as
decided by the Universal House of Justice or other authorized bodies laws
may be.
This makes sense and is not different in the non-Baha'i world. Nations have
constitutions i.e. the theoretical principles that form the foundation of
the state and then they have courts and executives that apply the principles
in actual cases. However, the theoretical foundations, the constitution,
cannot be ignored or neglected for that reason; if it isn't understood
correctly, the application will inevitably go astray.
However, that is not what Gilberto and others have been arguing. They have
been arguing precisely for cognitive, cultural, ethical and other forms of
relativism. Your initial claim notwithstanding, Gilberto and others have
been discussing the foundational principles (constitution).
You write,
"For practically every other person I've met, relativism has only to
do with ethics, not cognition. So the points you're bringing up
concerning cognitive relativism are irrelevant to their perspective.
And what keeps them from falling into the traps you argue against is
reference to principle as delineated in Scripture. There are some
problems there also, but you don't seem to be effectively addressing
them."
As I said before, they may not care, but that does not mean those issues
aren't inherent in the positions they take. As the dialogues of Socrates and
Plato already show, one of the prime tasks of philosophy is to find,
identify and unpack the hidden implications of our views - and to test them
for logical coherence, relations to other ideas, descriptive adequacy and so
on.
The philosophic enterprise does not limit itself to the concerns of those
still stuck in a pre-reflective mode of thought.
If people do not fall into the relativist traps because of "reference to
principle as delineated in Scripture" - then they are not relativists
anymore since they have adopted the Writings as the Archimedean standpoint
from which to judge among competing viewpoints and options. No postmodern
philosopher would accept this.
Individuals who turn to the Writings for foundational principles have
abandoned the belief that "truth is relative to the standpoint of the
judging subject" (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy) and decided that truth is
decided by Baha'u'llah's viewpoint, i.e. what harmonises with His teachings.
They may call themselves relativist but in practice in practical
application, they have abandoned relativism.
You write,
"Seems to me that more important on an every day level are such
questions as our attitude towards others given the triumphalist
under-pinings of our theology.
I have no problems with the "triumphalist under-pinings of our theology" -
indeed, support them fully. Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of God for this
age, and the surviving dispensations are less than fully adequate vehicles
for meeting the needs of our time and the further evolution of humankind.
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]
