Hi DMB,
Steve said: Consider the following passage and see what a "relativist" Rorty is. You'll recognize the last sentence since you quoted it before, but in context it is a denial of relativism: > dmb says: > > Okay, now you're starting to freak me out. Where you see a denial of > relativism, I see a confession of relativism. And yes, the confession comes > in the last sentence. "I'm just as provincial and contextualist as the Nazi" > is the groundless part and "I serve a better cause" is the social hope. Steve: Do you disagree with this passage or do you just think philosphers shouldn't admit such things? Are you asserting that there actually is a philosophical foundation that can be appealed to? Or are you saying that philosophers shoudl still be in the business of trying to find such a foundation? DMB: > That's what's ironic about the liberal ironist, see. He knows there is no > ground, no basis for his liberal beliefs except his own provincial context > but he joins in solidarity with others of the same tribe to serve the cause > anyway. Steve: Are you different from a liberal ironist in this regard? Since you also claim no ahistorical foundation I can't see how. DMB: > I mean, such a reading of this passage is only consistent with other Rorty > quotes, no? In any case, I definitely don't understand how this can be read > as a denial of relativism. Please explain. > Steve: Rorty is saying here that all perspectives are not equal, which is exactly what you said was lacking in Rorty's philosophy: "we liberal teachers no more feel in a symmetrical communication situation when we talk with bigots than do kindergarten teachers talking with their students." 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/
