Hi Marsha, One can say whatever one wants, so I have no idea what you are assuming. Are you suggesting rules of preference?
Mark On Nov 20, 2011, at 12:17 PM, MarshaV <[email protected]> wrote: > > Marsha: > For the sake of "taking words seriously' please present an exact definition > of 'relativism' as you are using it. > > > dmb answered in a nutshell: > Relativism is the view that truth is relative to the culture or the > individual, that there is no way to say that one truth is better than another. > > > Marsha: > By the way, dmb, your definition is begging the question, as it assumes the > answer to the question being posed: that there is no way to say that one > truth is better than another. > > __ > > > On Nov 20, 2011, at 2:12 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> Hey Mark" >> "Relativism" is a dirty word. Like "solipsism", it is a term of abuse used >> by philosophers against their enemies. Anyone who willingly wears those >> labels is either very brave or very foolish. >> In the MOQ, truth is provisional and plural. The MOQ rejects ideas like >> objective truth, absolute truth, fixed and eternal truth, or any kind of >> single exclusive truth but the relativist thinks there is no truth as such, >> at least not about anything human, about anything beyond the physical facts. >> What's "true" is just whatever we agree upon from within our own >> ethno-centric perspective, from within our own intersubjective space. This >> is exactly why Sam Harris and lots of other people think that Richard Rorty >> is a relativist, for example. This is why Pirsig thinks Boas was a >> relativists, for another example. >> "Pluralism" is a much better word for the pragmatic theory of truth. James >> has been misinterpreted as pushing relativism since the day he first >> published, especially among the positivists and the absolutists, but James >> himself considered such charges to be "impudent slander" and fought hard to >> explain that the pragmatic truth is "wedged and controlled" like no other. >> Marsha's fondness for relativism can only be maintained by ignoring Pirsig's >> conspicuously negative comments about relativism (and the role it plays in >> undermining truth, morality and intellectual level values). Pirsig saw >> Plato's charge against the Sophists as vicious slander and he denies it >> quite emphatically. This occurs at the philosophical and dramatic climax of >> the story. Getting rid of relativism is one of the central points in taking >> on both Platonism and SOM. >> >> She thinks the intellectual level can't escape from SOM and she thinks the >> MOQ is a form of relativism. I think that's profoundly wrong. It makes the >> MOQ into it's own worst enemy. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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
