Hello Bo, And RMP having pulled us to a new level explains that Quality(Dynamic and static) is the measure of all things. This then becomes not a regress back to the thinking of the early sophists, and not being stuck in the s/o confusion, but a big leap forward to Quality which includes the s/o intellectual patterns beneath it as a set of tools. Quality is the measure of all things, and that still makes it a form of relativism. I also still agree with you that it would be proper for the Dynamic/static (the MoQ) point-of-view to reign on its own level.
Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 3:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [Bulk] Re: Rorty's Relativism Hi Marsha 18 Aug. you wrote (to DMB): > I have read the chapter many, many times, and it doesn't reject > relativism. It rejects a extreme ethical relativism only. It's like > you stating that John Smith rejects ice cream when John Smith has said > he really likes ice cream but not lima bean ice cream. You are right. I don't know if you will go all the way, but the Sophists were the budding "subjectivists" of the budding SOM who stood against the budding o bjectivists. The Social Aretê as expressed by the Homeric heroes Achilles, Hector were long before the "thinkers". > The rest of the chapter has to do with Aristotle who ridiculed and > discredited the Sophists calling their relativism irrational. And that > only he, Phædrus, a madman, saw the horrors of what Aristotle had done > to sophistic relativism and rhetoric. Even more right. SOM's internal "Objectivity versus Subjectivity" began here and this controversy that has run down through the ages to our time. > The evidence that I presented, that 'Man is the measure of all > things.', is a statement of relativism, and that Phædrus goes on to > state "Yes, that's what he is saying about Quality." is equating > Quality with the sophists thinking about relativism. Even ethical > relativism of a less extreme form does not preclude making ethical > judgments relative to their value. Of course "man the measure".is a statement of relativism. However, the subjective-relativist/objective-nonrelativist distinction is immensely valuable - it's INTELLECT - but is not reality's deepest split.. > For the record and from wiki relativism also mean: 'The term often > refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no > absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some > particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.' And hence Socrates' and Plato's hatred of the Sophists. SOM began as objectivity - as TRUTH - but no sooner had it emerged than its inevitable subjective shadow popped up. Ergo, the S/O is an aggregate, you can't have one without the other. Bodvar 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/
