Dmb, Is there within this post a hidden definition of relativism that you'd like to adopt as your own?
Marsha On Feb 6, 2010, at 1:51 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Gav said to dmb: > isn't this splitting hairs? i mean if truth is contextual and perspectival > isn't that a form of relativism? 'truth is relative'... another way of saying > that might be 'context-dependent'. > > > Ron chimed in: > after reading up on it, it seems the term "relativism" is mostly used as a > perjorative in the respect that it is a term for pragmatism used by those > positivists that do not understand the point that pragmatism is trying to > make about empiricism. It carries such a spector of meaning meaninglessness > or truthlessness when in fact it's more a statement about the plurality of > truth and how humans relate to those truths. > > > > dmb says: > > I really don't think this is a matter of splitting hairs. In fact, in making > the case against relativism and for the pragmatic theory of truth last week, > which took the form of making a case against Rorty and for the classical > empiricists, I was able to quote from two books that were largely aimed at > making the same case. Most of the explanations offered by Hickman, the > director of Dewey Studies and SIU and Hildebrand, one of the professors I'm > studying with, were not addressed so it would be okay with me if you wanted > to look at that and drag some of the quotes into it. > > But let take a different approach. I was just looking at the pieces of Matt's > essay on SOM. I don't know if it was Bo or Matt who left it out, but a very > crucial piece of the story is missing. The whole book is structured around > the quest for Quality and yet that's exactly what's missing from the story. > In the post, the story is construed as a contest between Plato's absolutism > and the Sophist's relativism. Matt quotes a passage that SEEMS to support > this view. "Their object was not any single absolute truth, but the > improvement of men. All principles, all truths, are relative, they said. 'Man > is the measure of all things.' These were the famous teachers of 'wisdom', > the Sophists of ancient Greece." If Pirsig had stopped there, I might be able > to go along with Matt's reading but he didn't. In fact, Pirsig goes on to say > the very opposite, that they were NOT relativists and that coming to such a > conclusion about the Sophists doesn't make much sense. > > On the next page (374) he says, "the one thing that doesn't fit what he says > and what Plato says about the Sophists is their profession of teaching > VIRTUE. All accounts indicate that this was absolutely central to their > teaching, but how are you going to teach virtue if you teach the relativity > of all ethical ideas?" He explores the issue for a couple of pages and then > says, (377) "Lightning hits! QUALITY! VIRTUE! DHARMA! THAT is what the > Sophists were teaching! NOT ethical relativism. NOT pristine 'virtue'. But > ARETE. Excellence. DHARMA! Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. > Before from. Before mind and matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had > been absolute. Those first teachers of the Western world were teaching > QUALITY, and the medium they had chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been > doing it right all along." (Emphasis is Pirsig's) > > Now if that book is about Pirsig's quest for Quality and this > anti-relativistic passage is where he finally finds it, then it's a hell of a > thing to leave out. That reading quite literally takes the Quality out of the > MOQ and converts it instead to Rortyism or postmodern neopragmatism or > linguistic idealism or something that otherwise excludes the main idea. And > in Lila, the conflict between Richard Rigel and the captain is all about > relativism. Pirsig had been accused of relativism between the two books and > part of what he's doing in Lila is disputing that charge. That's why you find > all that talk about moral codes and how you can judge other cultures, not > according to the standards of your own culture of course but by assessing > their contribution to the ongoing process of life, how you can judge values > according to their evolutionary status, etc. > > Or you could think of it in very broad terms. If the trick is to strike a > balance between static and dynamic, then absolutism is too static and > relativism is too dynamic. Too much rigidity prevents growth but so does too > much instability. And that's what you get with relativism, too much > instability. This is what you get when you take the view that there is > nothing outside the text, which is to say that words don't refer to anything > except other words. That is a very slippery situation and that's why people > say Rorty is a relativist. Those book I was quoting from are written by > contemporary pragmatists who think it's important to take issue with Rorty's > assertions and distinguish them from the assertions made by Dewey, James and > other classical pragmatists. I mean, the professionals don't think it's a > matter of splitting hairs. As Hildebrand puts it, Rortyism "eviscerates" > Dewey's pragmatism. And from there it's pretty easy to see that Rortyism > eviscerates Pirsig's work in a > similar way. > > > Thanks, > > dmb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469228/direct/01/ > 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/
