Yes, way! And I loved the book. I like calling myself a Relativist, I like reclaiming words. I call myself a witch too. Like Werner Heisenberg has said "There are things that are so serious that you can only joke about them." (But I'm not joking.) I've read Kant, Hume, Descartes, etc., lordy they inspire a need for some humor. Nietzsche was cool! I would like to learn more about Paul Feyerabend, from what little I know he is a very interesting character. - Because of reading 'Rereading the Sophists' I have more respect for the Protagoras and Gorgias, and more distain for Plato and Aristotle and their rationalism, and huge amounts of increased good cheer (if that's even possible) for our modern-day and greatest Sophist, Robert M. Pirsig. If 'Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism' is even half as interesting, I will be pleased.
Thanks for writing Matt. I like sharing an interest in the sophists with you, and the reading of a great book. Marsha p.s. Senator Russ Feingold is a good man. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Kundert Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 1:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism Oh, no way! That's so weird, because I always figured that book, Rereading the Sophists, was one of those lost-through-cracks academic books that no one will read. I happened to find it used years ago, and considering our mutual interest in Pirsig, I imagine we picked it up for the same reasons. The books not bad--it is based on a lot of the same research I've since gone on to read and use in my stuff: most prominently and importantly, Eric Havelock's Preface to Plato, which Susan Jarrat (the author, if I remember correctly--all my books are packed up for moving) uses to discuss the mythos/logos and orality/literacy connections, which myself and Ron Kulp have become very interested in. I still remember reading and discovering for the first time that the Greek word "historia," which is what our word "history" is rooted in, meant more like "inquiry." Very intriguing. Personally, I actually agree with Steve about using the word relativism, but--and this is partly for Steve--I wouldn't get too upset about it if people want to wrap themselves in a generally disparaged term as a way of reclaiming it. After discussing with a person, and seeing what they mean by it, you can generally figure out if they _are_ something that should be disparaged, or rather actually something you refer to by simply a different term: which I think Marsha is, given years of discussion--I would call her a panrelationalist: everything relates to something else. What's the difference between that and relativism, everything is relative to something else? Hell if I know, but this is rhetoric, this is all done in front of an audience (sometimes a big one called Humankind), and some words just have bad associations, and it's best when trying not to get off on the wrong foot with someone to use a less bombastic term. For whatever reason, "relativism" just _is_ a bombastic term when used as a serious self-description--it will surprise people that you'd call yourself one. Nothing we can do about their surprise, but sometimes bombs are what are called for to shake people out of old thinking, so I don't get too upset when people want to lob some rockets (Rorty made an amazing Malatov cocktail). For rhetorical reasons, I stay well away from relativism to describe myself, and it sounds the same for Steve (and bear in mind, too, for Steve, that he's in the middle of a bouhaha with DMB about "relativism" and it is simply _assumed_ that relativism is bad, so Steve _has_ to treat it with steel gloves, or else DMB will take Steve to be conceding something stupid and laugh him off the rhetorical stage). But there are many famous, great philosophers who called themselves "crazy," bombastic things, though the people who loved their writings stayed away from the same self-descriptions--Paul Feyerabend (who did almost as much as Thomas Kuhn to help shake up the philosophy of science from its SOM-terrors) called himself a relativist. Nelson Goodman, who was at Harvard with Quine and Hilary Putnam, called himself an "irrealist"--designed to be even weirder than the two camps of "realist" and "anti-realist." But some philosophers make up their own isms to try and cut middle grounds in old debates (or cut themselves entirely out of), like Rorty with his exotic epistemological behaviorism (from Philosophy and Mirror of Nature, when he tried to combine the upshot of Quine and Sellars) or like Putnam in Reason, Truth, and History, when he defined Metaphysical Realism as what Steve has been calling the Absolutist/Objectivist pole and Relativism as the other side, and struck out some middle ground as his Internal Realism--realism is true _internal_ to a picture of reality (like, say, the MoQ). Putnam's the guy who coined the phrase "God's-eye point of view," as in, there is no God's-eye point of view, so we should stop trying to break out of the internals of some picture of reality to an external view, like God would have. I have to hand it to you, Marsha--you are hilarious in conversation sometimes, though it helps to not be the one talking to you (when it can be occasionally quite frustrating ;-). Matt p.s. I used to deliver ILL books all across the great state of Wisconsin, home of the Progressive Senator Without Peer, Russ Feingold. It's a great tool people should use more. > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:00:51 -0400 > Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism > > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you're up to on Facebook. http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON :WL:en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009 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/
