Steve said to dmb:
... Can you please, please, please define relativism with respect to truth, so
I can know what you mean when you say (pace Ant) that Pirsig can't rightly be
called a relativist with respect to truth?
dmb says:
Pragmatic truth is empirical. I would have thought it would be completely
obvious that empiricism is incompatible with relativism. They're not exactly
opposite terms, but I can't think of a way to be both an empiricist and a
relativist at the same time. So I'm quite baffled by your objections to that
answer. I also pointed out that truth can be plural and provisional without
giving up these empirical standards.
As for Rorty's part, it's like the Wiki article said: "Thus his position, in
the view of many commentators, adds up to relativism." As you so often do,
Steve, you're asking for an answer that I already supplied. You're asking in
response to the post in which I supplied it. Are you playing some kind of game?
Again, the Wikipedia article on RELATIVISM has a section on RORTY:
Wiki says, "Philosopher Richard Rorty has a somewhat paradoxical role in the
debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views, but
prefers to describe himself not as a relativist, but as a
pragmatist.'"Relativism" is the traditional epithet applied to pragmatism by
realists'[14]'"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.'[15]'In short, my strategy for escaping the self-referential
difficulties into which "the Relativist" keeps getting himself is to move
everything over from epistemology and metaphysics into cultural politics, from
claims to knowledge and
appeals to self-evidence to suggestions about what we should try.'[16]Rorty
takes a deflationary attitude to truth, believing there is nothing of interest
to be said about truth in general, including the contention that it is
generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of warrant or
justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of
truth, and that justification is relative; justification is justification to an
audience, for Rorty. Thus his position, in the view of many commentators, adds
up to relativism.In Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity he argues that the
debate between so-called relativists and so-called objectivists is beside the
point because they don't have enough premises in common for either side to
prove anything to the other".
Let me repeat the salient point. "He also argues ...that justification is
RELATIVE; justification is justification to an audience, for Rorty. Thus his
position, in the view of MANY COMMENTATORS, adds up to RELATIVISM."
That is my "unusual" idea of what relativism is, specifically in relation to
Rorty's position. Is there something unclear about this? How is it that an
encyclopedia article on Rorty's relativism goes unrecognized as the answer to
your question about relativism? I mean, why do I have to do this twice?
Steve said:
I have no idea what they or you could mean by relativism because you have
refused to define it.
dmb says:
Again, the Wiki article explains why Rorty is seen as a relativist. "Thus his
position,.. adds up to relativism." You deleted the Wiki quote and now you're
accusing me of refusing to define it? Kinda slap-stick sloppy, don't you think?
AND you claim that you have no idea what it could mean, despite that fact that
you JUST READ a description of Rorty's relativism in the Wiki quote I supplied?
This conversation is looking like a bad comedy sketch, a comedy or errors. "his
position, in the view of many commentators, adds up to relativism."
Steve said:
I am still very interested to read a concise definition of relativism from you
where Rorty qualifies but James does not.
dmb says:
"Thus his position, in the view of many commentators, adds up to relativism."
Hmmm. That question sounds vaguely familiar. Oh, I know. How about if I go to
some basic, neutral, third party for an answer. That way, we can have a common
definition to work with. You know, especially because my idea of relativism is
so weird and unusual, eh? "Thus his position, in the view of many commentators,
adds up to relativism."
As luck would have it, the Wikipedia article on RELATIVISM has a section on
RORTY: Wiki says, "Philosopher Richard Rorty has a somewhat paradoxical role in
the debate over relativism: he is criticized for his relativistic views, but
prefers to describe himself not as a relativist, but as a
pragmatist.'"Relativism" is the traditional epithet applied to pragmatism by
realists'[14]'"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.'[15]'In short, my strategy for escaping the self-referential
difficulties into which "the Relativist" keeps getting himself is to move
everything over fro
m epistemology and metaphysics into cultural politics, from claims to
knowledge and appeals to self-evidence to suggestions about what we should
try.'[16]Rorty takes a deflationary attitude to truth, believing there is
nothing of interest to be said about truth in general, including the contention
that it is generally subjective. He also argues that the notion of warrant or
justification can do most of the work traditionally assigned to the concept of
truth, and that justification is relative; justification is justification to an
audience, for Rorty. Thus his position, in the view of many commentators, adds
up to relativism."
_________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail.
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
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/md/archives.html
