Dear Sen,
You quote the Master's Sermon on governance, and then conclude,
"Truth does not exist outside the context, it is itself derived from
the context. Since the social context changes, and the religious
context changes with it, religious truth is not absolute but
relative, as the Guardian maintained."
Nothing in Abdul'Baha's passage says that "truth does not exist outside of
context" - and it flatly contradicts your claim that "it [truth] is derived
from context."
Abdu'l-Baha writes, "the religious law and social system are necessary
relationships that **derive from** the realities of things."
If law and social systems are "derive[d] from the realities of things" it
means that the nature of law and social system depend on the "reality of
things." This is a realist point of view, i.e. law and social system (and
the standpoints they exemplify) do not determine the "reality of things" as
relativism would have it; rather it's the other way around: the realities do
the determining and the law and social system are the determined.
Furthermore, the "reality of things" is a Baha'i term for the essences of
things (cf. my "The Aristotelian Substratum of the Baha'i Writings", Lights
of Irfan, Vol. 4, 2003) thus affirming essentialism in regard to things
and/or situations. It is the essences, the realities of the situation which
determine and condition law and social systems. Furthermore, essentialism
means that the truth about something is determined by the nature of the
thing and is not dependent on the position of the subject. Essentialism,
which this passage exemplifies, is incompatible with relativism. (It is not
incompatible with perspectivism as my paper on "Relativism and the Writings"
points out.)
This is vital because it means that the "realities of things" condition and
determine law, social systems, systems of science and thus, this reality is
revealed by and made apparent through them. The superficial expression of
the truth may differ but the underlying truth is the same - and can be
known.
Moreover, even if the social context changes, the "eternal verities" of
religion remain, as Shoghi Effendi writes:
"He [the Manifestation] 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).
Nor is there any indication anywhere in the Writings that scientific truth
is subject to human law and social systems; if it were, there could not be
progress but only change a la Kuhn. However, the Writings are emphatic that
progress in knowledge is real: "consider, in this great century which is the
cycle of Bahá'u'lláh, what progress science and knowledge have made, how
many secrets of existence have been discovered, how many great inventions
have been brought to light and are day by day multiplying in number." (SAQ
64).
You quote,
"the supreme Manifestations of God are aware of the reality of the
mysteries of beings. Therefore, They establish laws which are
suitable and adapted to the state of the world of man, for religion
is the essential connection which **proceeds from** the realities of
things. The Manifestation -- that is, the Holy Lawgiver -- unless He
is aware of the realities of beings, will not comprehend the
essential connection which proceeds from the realities of things,
and He will certainly not be able to establish a religion
conformable to the facts and suited to the conditions.
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 158)"
The same remarks as above apply here: religion is originates in and is
determined and conditioned by the realities of things and not the other way
around as relativism asserts. Here too the "essential connections" come into
play, thus re-emphasising the essentialism inherent in the Writings - and
the problems that creates for relativism.
RE SAQ 158 you write,
"Note what is being said here -- even the Manifestation depends on
knowledge of particulars and their relations. If there was a 'neutral
Archimedean standpoint', wouldn't it be the Manifestation and not the
philosopher that stood in it? But no."
I think you have totally misunderstood this passage.
All this passage says is that the Manifestation would not be able to
establish laws appropriate to an age if He were not aware of the "realities
of beings", i.e. their essence or true nature; the knowledge of the essence
of things, of their true nature includes a knowledge of their past, present
and potential future relations.
Nothing here says or even vaguely suggests that the knowledge of the
Manifestation is limited by, i.e. "depends on" our limited human knowledge
as embodied in law or social systems. It is precisely because He knows the
essential reality of things that He is able to establish an appropriate
religious teaching. Indeed, I would regard any suggestion that the knowledge
of the Manifestation is limited, conditioned, determined by human knowledge
as totally incompatible with the Writings:
"The real Manifestation of God must be endowed with divine knowledge and not
dependent upon learning acquired in schools. He must be the educator, not
the educated"( Abdu'l-Bahá, Foundations of World Unity 112)
You quote
" By nature is meant those inherent properties and necessary relations
derived from the realities of things. And these realities of things,
though in the utmost diversity, are yet intimately connected one
with the other. For these diverse realities an all-unifying agency
is needed that shall link them all one to the other. "(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet
to August Forel, p. 12)
and write
"[The unifying agency
here is not a philsopher standing on an archimedan point: it is God,
the unknowable and all-knowing.)"
I think you're desperately grasping at straws here.
Nowhere have I suggested that the philosopher is the "all-unifying agency"
to link the various realities together.
Again, notice the essentialism here, "the **inherent** properties and
**necessary** conditions derived from the **realities of things**." What
makes the issue of essentialism important in this discussion because
relativism denies essentialism since essentialism denies that truth depends
on the position of the subject.
In effect, you have pointed to more proof why the Writings aren't
relativistic and why they are essentialist.
You quote,
"Now concerning nature, it is but the essential properties and the
necessary relations **inherent in the realities of things.** And though
these infinite realities are diverse in their character yet they are
in the utmost harmony and closely connected together. As one's
vision is broadened and the matter observed carefully, it will be
made certain that every reality is but an essential requisite of
other realities. Thus to connect and harmonize these diverse and
infinite realities an all-unifying Power is necessary, that every
part of existent being may in perfect order discharge its own
function. (Abdu'l-Baha, Tablet to August Forel, p. 20)"
Notice the essentialism again - "the essential properties and the
necessary relations **inherent in the realities of things.***"
Since these properties are "essential", the relations are "necessary" and
"**inherent** [intrinsic, essential, not dependent] in the realities of
things, their nature is not determined or conditioned by our views or
standpoints but by themselves. IOW, the truth about them is not dependent on
the position of the subject. But such dependence is exactly what relativism
claims - which is exactly why the Writings aren't relativistic. As my paper
argues, they exemplify perspectivalism and relationalism but those are not
relativism.
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]
