Steve said to dmb: ...What I can't understand and what you still haven't explained is what a pragmatist could possibly mean in calling another pragmatist a relativist. If absolute-relative is a version of objective-subjective, what business would someone who has rejected SOM have in accusing someone else as being a relativist. What could they mean by the term? ...Do you have a definition that a pragmatist would use for relativism? Would you like to use Rorty's? "Relativism" is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperative freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on an important topic are equally good. The philosophers who get called "relativists" are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought. . .So the real issue is not between people who think that one view is as good as another and people who do not. It is between those think our culture, or purposes, or intuitions, cannot be supported except conversationally, and people who still hope for other sorts of support." (Consequences of Pragmatism, U. of Minnesota Press, 1982, pp. 166-167.)
dmb says: Okay, for the sake of argument, let's say the "cooperative freshmen" who thinks all opinions are "equally good" represents a view we all reject. (That definition of relativism is extremely convenient for Rorty, but what the hell.) Let's say the "real issue" is just as Rorty says. In this case, if you think our culture, purposes or intuitions CAN be supported by something more than conversation. (Again, I would point out that the idea of conversation being the only way to support this is what I mean by intersubjectivity as "truth", although you're right to point out that this is not really a theory of truth at all.) Anyway, if we accept Rorty's notion of the "real issue" then relativism is not the belief that all opinions are equally valid but the belief that there is no way to sort that out except through conversation. How does he put it? Solidarity replaces Objectivity, or something like that. Again, this is the "intersubjective agreement" I refer to. This is exactly where I'd object. This is what relativism looks like among pragmatists, among those who are not SOMers. (Although I am a bit suspicious about Rorty on this point. If the guy subscribes to "physicalism" and "interSUBJECTIVITY, how thoroughly has he really rejected those assumptions? I've also suspected that he doesn't reject those assumptions so much as he's given up on trying to solve the philosophical problem they give rise to.) The problem is that this conversational restraint leads to a kind of ethno-centrism wherein you can only convince your peers. That's one of the things Rorty was getting at in the quote about educating his bigoted, fundamentalist students. He concluded that comment saying, "I am just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi teachers who made their students read Der Stürmer; the only difference is that I serve a better cause." This is something to be concerned about. This is why people think he's a relativist, because there is no way to escape one's provincial context, no way to assert values or principles beyond our culture. This is what I was getting at a few days ago when I mentioned how relativism poses a problem for those of us who wish to assert the universality of human rights. This sort of attitude is intellectually paralyzing to the extent that it weakens the possibility of international laws such as the Geneva conventions. At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, this sort of attitude is pretty damn likely to lead to a humanitarian catastrophe. Like I've been trying to explain, the radical empiricist thinks there is another way to support or purposes and intuitions, namely experience. Experience is the test of truth, not conversation. This doesn't give us any kind of absolute truth and here truth is just an intellectual pattern that works in terms of guiding our experience. You know, it's a species of the good. It is subordinate to Quality, subordinate to experience but that doesn't mean it's not real or that it's not important. It can't give us any ultimate foundations (absolutism) but it can give us provisional "platforms" from which we can push back against the nonsense, lies and bullshit. (I said that during class one time when we were discussing Rorty, as a matter of fact. I'd said, quite sincerely and emphatically. "But we don't need THEE absolute truth! We just need something to push back against all the bullshit". Then, realizing that I'd just used the word "bullshit" in a philosophy class, I said, "Sorry. Please excuse my French." I then expecting a little scolding for that naughty word, I winced. Instead, Hildebrand said something like, "No, it's okay and I think that's about right". I think he genuinely appreciated the passion as much as the thought. And then we started talking about all the political lies that had been told in recent years and the number of lives that have been lost as a result of that bullshit. I mean, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or they did not. This is not going to be settled by conversation. It's gonna be settled by finding the weapons or by not finding the weapons. (They didn't.) Steve said:...Rorty supports a whole bunch of liberal causes that you personally cheer for. How is that an example of relativism? The SOMer would complain that Rorty is not basing the superiority of these liberal causes on an ahistorical foundation. But what would a pragmatists complaint be? dmb says: Rorty's liberal views are not an example of relativism and when I hear him bashing the policies and politicians that need bashing it warms my heart, but he believes that there is no basis for those views outside of the provincial context where they are already held. Not even in his own classroom, apparently. Again, this is intellectually paralyzing. It strikes me as one of those things that's held to be true even though it isn't any good. Reasoning carefully and intelligently, he's developed an idea with the potential for very horrible consequences. Steve said: And what prevents the Nazi's from using other philosopher's articulation of pragmatism? They used Christianity though any Christian will now say that it wasn't REALLY Christianity. I think any claim that the Nazi's simply could not use a particular philosophy would get into such a "No True Scottsman" fallacy. dmb says: Well, I don't mean to suggest that pragmatism can somehow prevent the abuse or distortion of pragmatism by dishonest bullies. Anyone who would blame pragmatism for that is a dishonest bully himself. But ideas have consequences. Responsible philosophers should be concerned about that. And so people who go around saying that believing this or believing that "works for me" without regard for how that belief is going to play itself out if others, like NAZIs for example, adopt that same attitude, as in, "Hey, killing all the Jews works for me. It suits my culture and my purpose and who are you to say it's wrong? I'm just trying to save the pure blood of my people." You don't want to just say, "Oh well, he has his provincial attitudes and I have mine. I think he's wrong but he's operating in a different context and since there is no "god's eye view" from which we can evaluate our differences, my hands are tied. Obviously, this is an extreme example but the same notion applies in a million smaller ways. And yes, sadly, sometimes philosophy is not the right tool. Sometimes the right tools are the army, navy, air force and marines. Steve said: ... you come back with an appeal to authority???? ... What you need to say is what makes you think that Rorty has revealed himself as a relativist other than that he has been accused of being a relativist. You haven't even attempted to make a case. dmb says: You think I'm only appealing to authority and not at all making a case for Rorty's relativism? Seriously? When I cite or quote other philosophers I'm hoping that you'll be persuaded because what they say makes sense, not on the basis of their "authority". Don't get me wrong, I would cite or quote somebody unless I thought they knew what they were talking about. But that's just a matter of competence, not authority. I mean, isn't it safe to assume that you'd want to know why the classical pragmatists take issue with Rorty. And since they are not SOMers, why do you keep insisting that only SOMers could be concerned with relativism. Don't their objections to relativism PROVE that you are incorrect about that? I think so. Steve said: ...The issue here is that you claim that Rorty equates truth with intersubjective agreement and have not provided any evidence for that claim. dmb says: Well, that particular phrase isn't used in the quote you provided above about the meaning of "relativism" but the idea is there. Rorty says, "the real issue ...is between those think our culture, or purposes, or intuitions, CANNOT BE SUPPORTED EXCEPT CONVERSATIONALLY, and people who still hope for other sorts of support". I mean, if Rorty's words are not evidence of Rorty's thoughts, then what could be evidence? In philosophy, that's about all you get. Sometimes it's good to back things up with empirical data from the sciences and such, but usually textual evidence is all you get. It's like literary criticism in that sense. All you can do is work with what has been written, what has been said by other philosophers. But you're right to say he doesn't EQUATE intersubjective agreement with truth because he doesn't think we can have "truth" at all. But that's the only support we can have for our views and so it's as close to "truth" as Rorty's view allows. If I said he equates the two, then I take it back. Steve said: Usually I'm a little skeptical when someone says "I just picked one at random," but I actually believe you here. I repeated the search and found the text you quoted came from Leadership U. It's a site I might frequent if I were a young evangelical Christian. Didn't you notice that the article began with this? [...] Even if this site had any credibility with either of us, it would still be just an appeal to authority rather than a quote of Rorty himself saying that he equates truth with intersubjectivity. dmb says: Oh dear, that IS embarrassing. No, I didn't notice who said it or under what banner. I just looked for the highlighted phrase "intersubjective agreement and copied that part of it. But at least it shows that I'm not arguing from authority. At this point it's kind of fun to turn the table and accuse you of an ad hominem attack. I mean, is it wrong just because a christian says it? I'd also point out that this would be evidence that postmodernism in general and Rorty in particular tends to freak out the wider culture. I mean, this is definitely at the heart of all the culture war stuff. Rorty is a pretty good example of why millions of americans hate intellectuals and academia. Because of him, people hear the word "pragmatism" and they think "relativism". As a pragmatist, that bums me out. _________________________________________________________________ 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/
