OK Gord. I've mentioned this before, but consider this. Cultural
relativism is itself an cultural assumption. That means that,
according to cultural relativism, it is merely one choice among others,
and does not occupy any priveleged position. Therefore, if cultural
relativism is true, we have no reason to suppose it is true.
So, we see that in reality, you do not actually believe in cultural
relativism...you believe in open mindedness, and a willingness to see
things from another person's perspective.
Now, I agree that this weak form of cultural relativism is very useful.
And it is also very useful to recognize that we are fallible humans
who can have mistaken ideas.
But HOW exactly can you state that, say, democracy or freedom or
socialism is a good cultural attribute to have? What privledges YOUR
viewpoint? WHY should we listen to you if what you say is true? It is
like arguing with someone who says they don't believe in logic. Well,
you are free not to believe in logic and reason, but you had to have
some reason to reject reason. So, if you reject logic there is no
logical reason for you to therefore reject logic. And there would be
no reason for you to talk to other people and try to convince them that
logic was wrong, since they would have no way to evaluate your
statements if your statements were true.
So, cultural relativism is a bad ideology. Let's replace it with
something else...how about we call it a scientific ideology. And then
we can all agree with your statements that, scientifically, we have no
way to evaluate certain ideas, and that therefore there is no reason to
prefer one cultural method over another. But without privledging (to
use the jargon) a scientific ideology, there is no reason to do
anything...we're back to brains in boxes and suchlike.
No. As human beings we cannot start at the beginning of epistemology
and derive everything from that, we are obliged by our existance to
begin in the middle and work our way both forward and backward. Here
we are, hunting and gathering and trying to stay alive. Well, we've
discovered all kinds of new things, but because we are human beings we
have to start there...in our existance as natural creatures created by
natural selection on some planet or another, trying to figure stuff out
on our own.
And it seems to me that cultural relativism sort of recognizes that,
and says that since we have to start in the middle, since there is no
ultimate epistemology that we can anchor our ideas on, that we are
therefore obliged to just give up and say that we cannot make any
choices, or that we can make choices but there is no way to say which
choices are better than any others.
But we can't just throw up our hands...even you recognize that certain
things should be opposed. And why? Because you have a scientific
ideology after all, you just pretend not to, or tell yourself that you
don't. And the great thing about a scientific ideology is that it can
examine itself without unravelling, unlike cultural
relativism/nihilism. So now we have a basis for discussing
things...even if you claim to be a cultural relativist, we can
scientifically show that you must not be one, because otherwise why
would you try to convince be to believe in cultural relativism?
=====
Darryl
Think Galactically -- Act Terrestrially
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
