Steve, Recently read, 'Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured', I'm a relativist and proud, and what you think I should or shouldn't call myself has little impact on what I do or do not call myself, especially since you will not define what the word does or doesn't mean as if the word is relative only to the value you experience. But they are your thoughts, without meaning for me, so possibly if I add them to my annuals they might produce an increase in flower growth. Some more interesting thoughts on the subject of relativism might be found in another book I plan to order through ILL, 'Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism', by Ugo Zilioli, ISBN-10: 0754660788, ISBN-13: 978-0754660781. (Such expensive books to affirm that there is nothing to know and no one to know it!). I like the idea of many truths. Gazillions of truths, all related to each other, and I love them all, every last one of them, even the ones you cannot define. What do you think about many truths?
If you can be very still, I will paint you blue. Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:01 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:26 AM, MarshaV wrote: > > > Steve, > > Once again, what is your definition of relativism? > > > Marsha Hi Marsha, I would like to see the term dropped from our vocabulary in part because it is so unclear what anybody means by the term and part because I'd like to see SOM, the philosophical system on which the term is based, dropped altogether. In every day usage, it just seems to be a catch-all term for anyone a conservative disagrees with. In philosophy, my take is that relativism-absolutism is just another version of subjective-objective. It is the same question as asking if the quality is in the subject or the object. The claim that truth and morality are just subjective (relativism) is self-defeating because that claim itself then must be viewed as just subjective and needn't be taken seriously. So I don't think anyone should want to call herself a "relativist" because such a person will not be taken to even believe herself when she calls herself that. In the MOQ, however, absolutism-relativism is one of those philosophical platypi that get dissolved to the point where you wonder why you even asked the question to begin with. Are morals cultural constructs? Of course they are, but so are atoms and mathematics. It doesn't mean that there aren't true and false things to be said about them. There is no problem for moral claims as well as factual claims to be thought of as having truth-value, so the MOQ denies relativism. And we can make such claims without imagining such essences as Natural Law or The Moral Law for such claims to try to conform to, so the MOQ also denies absolutism. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
