dmb, You stated that you made a case against 'relativism' when in fact you hadn't adequately defined relativism. Here is a dictionary definition:
Relativism: The doctrine that no ideas or beliefs are universally true but that all are, instead, “relative” — that is, their validity depends on the circumstances in which they are applied. Did you make a case against this definition of relativism? Where? And of course you totally ignored RMP's statement from the SODV paper. "The reason there is a difference between individual evaluations of quality is that although Dynamic Quality is a constant, these static patterns are different for everyone because each person has a different static pattern of life history. Both the Dynamic Quality and the static patterns influence his final judgment. That is why there is some uniformity among individual value judgments but not complete uniformity." Relative to history and context. Marsha On Feb 7, 2010, at 3:22 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > > Marsha said to dmb: > Look into it? Your assumptions that I haven't are telling. Should I try to > impress you with my reading list? > > > > dmb says: > > I'd be happy if you simply understood the terms you're employing. The fact > is, your views can be sharpened and improved by taking the time to learn what > words like "contextualism" and "relativism" mean to the people who use them, > or even just what it means to people who use dictionaries. > > I'm just not going to argue with you about this, Marsha. You don't know what > you're saying. You don't understand the context or the import and, > apparently, you don't want to understand. Every time I try to help you cop an > attitude wherein it's bad form to quote philosophers in making one's case. > But that's where the terms their meaning, that's where the terms are used in > practice. That's where "some philsophers hold that context-dependence may > lead to relativism". That's just how the game works, lady, and using quotes > is a matter of using what's called "textual evidence" In that game such > evidence is NOT considered to be an argument from authority. The notion that > this is somehow illegitimate is just laughable nonsense. Textual evidence is > CONTRASTED with arguments from authority. You don't know what you're talking > about in that case either. > > Sorry, but I really don't want to hear it anymore. It's a drag to endure such > condescending hostility even when I think it's justified but when it's coming > from such an ignorant place, it's just unbearable. I've been pretty nice > about it up until now but obviously I'm done with that tactic. > > ContextualismContextualism describes a collection of views in philosophy > which emphasize the context in which an action, utterance, or expression > occurs, and argues that, in some important respect, the action, utterance, or > expression can only be understood relative to that context.[1] Contextualist > views hold that philosophically controversial concepts, such as "meaning P," > "knowing that P," "having a reason to A," and possibly even "being true" or > "being right" only have meaning relative to a specified context. Some > philosophers[2] hold that context-dependence may lead to relativism;[3] > nevertheless, contextualist views are increasingly popular within > philosophy.[4] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/201469229/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/
