dmb, And like I said, I have not adopted the perspective you've concocted from your small portion of the flux-of-life. Yours is 'just' one point-of-view. For me, the MoQ is epistemologically relative (sq) and ontologically indeterminate (DQ), and that is what I mean when I call myself a relativist. I do not need to be influenced by what you say is the socially acceptable jargon within the tiny slice of academia that is your life as a student.
Marsha On Sep 25, 2010, at 3:40 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > Yes, like I said, pragmatists have always been up against the charge of > relativism. James and Dewey scholars have been doing quite a lot of work > refuting that charge, leveling it against Rorty and otherwise trying to sort > that out. That conversation is exactly where you will find the differences > between relativism and pluralism, between relativism and perspectivalism, > between relative truth and provisional truth. > > > You may have seen this issue as it was played out in my discussions with > Steve. We talked about the difference between the empirically based pragmatic > theory of truth and Rorty's view that we shouldn't even have a theory of > truth. Since he thinks there is no such thing as truth and no real chance of > having an epistemological standard, he thinks there are no constraints on our > claims except for conversational ones. That's what I'd call relativism. (It's > no coincidence that Rorty rejects the empirical parts of James and Dewey.) > His view is more sophisticated than saying "reality is whatever you think" > and he avoids the problem of solipsism entirely, but it amounts it amount to > relativism all the same. Even among postmodern thinkers, this is not a label > worn proudly. Rorty didn't think it applied to him and his defenders get > pretty sore about the charge. > > > And yet here you are defending it like it was a good thing. I think you must > not realize what you're saying, how disreputable such a position is. > > > > In any case, if experience is the test of truth then reality demonstrably is > or demonstrably is not what you think it is. If pragmatism says our beliefs > are constrained by experience, then you can't rightly call it relativism. > > > > To put it quite simply, empiricism and relativism are mutually exclusive > positions. Your claim equates mutally exclusive positions. That is, in a > nutshell, why it makes no sense. > > > > > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2010 14:58:18 -0400 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [MD] william James. >> >> >> Cognitive relativism asserts the relativity of truth. >> >> ... >> >> In the twentieth century, a relativistic view of truth can be found in or >> inferred from the work of many major philosophers, including James, Dewey, >> Wittgenstein, Quine, Kuhn, Gadamer, Foucault, Rorty, and most of those >> commonly labeled “postmodernists”. >> >> http://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/ >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 > > 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 ___ 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
