Steve said:
I am saying that empiricism does none of the work you think it does in giving
you a leg up over anyone else in any conversation where there is disagreement
about what is true or ethical. When I say it makes no difference, I mean it
makes no difference in the only sort of relevant practice which is trying to
convince someone else where there is disagreement or uncertainty on truth of
fact or ethics.
..I get it, empiricism is the "something" in your "I have something that you
don't have claims." But again, this "something" does none of the work you think
it does in giving you a leg up over anyone else in any conversation where there
is disagreement about what is true or ethical. There are no sorts of arguments
that you can make that others who do not claim it can't make. That is what I
mean when I say it doesn't make a difference in practice. The difference is
merely philosophical. ..It doesn't make a difference to any conversation where
there is disagreement about what is true or ethical. ..These hypothetical
standards like all other possible standards are ones that conversants either
agree or disagree to accept. They are not handed to us by the universe. To
possess these or any set of standards is not to possess anything that
automatically trumps what standards someone else may bring. Like everyone else,
you have to start by arguing over what standards ought to apply t
o settle the question at hand. ..You have no advantage by claiming empiricism
in any conversation where the truth or falsity of any assertion is in
question--the only context that matters for the issue of relativism. ..You
really think that you have some knockdown arguments you could make in
conversations with Nazis to win them over that Rorty could not make? I think
you ought to admit that you have no conversational resources for dealing with
Nazis than Rorty did. ..Please admit that you have no better way to make the
case to the Nazi ...Faced with such a situation you and Rorty would both do the
same sorts of things if you have any hope of making a difference. You would
swap stories and appeal to existing sympathies to try to explain why our
sympathies ought to be extended to Jews. One thing that certainly would not
make a difference or give you any advantage over Rorty in any such practical
situation is your claim to empiricism. That wold be a complete non sequitor.
dmb says:
Well, no. I'm pretty sure you don't "get it" and you've said almost nothing
about empiricism or relativism. It's not even an argument, really. It's just a
repeated and emphatic denial that empiricism matters, that the only thing that
does matter is conversational power. You're just begging the question in
Rorty's favor. I mean, of course he doesn't think empiricism matters. That's
why he switches everything over to convincing, knockdown arguments, just as you
have done here.
Your "argument", such as it is, amounts to very little. Since I can't reason
with an unreasonable person any better than Rorty can, empiricism doesn't
matter. Huh? Who ever said that philosophy was about forcing Nazis to become
liberals through the sheer force of persuasion anyway? That's one of the
dumbest things I've ever heard, not that I haven't heard it before. No
philosophy can do that and it's a completely unreasonable way to measure the
value or veracity of any idea. I suspect it must be some kind of
over-simplified and distorted version of Rorty's "intersubjective agreement".
And this is exactly where Rorty would admit that he can't get anything over on
the Nazi. He's not going to share enough intersubjectivity to count as a member
of the tribe such that he could be persuaded by the tribe of liberals or
democrats. This is the kind of philosophical ethno-centrism I mentioned last
time. On this same principle, Rorty says he can't get anything over on his
fundamentalist
students either. All he can do is try to get them to switch tribes, so to
speak. This is what I mean when I say he is a relativist. He thinks there is no
way to adjudicate between tribes because saying which is right and which is
wrong, he thinks, would entail stepping outside of both or otherwise getting
some god's eye, objective view. He has lots of fancy reasons for this, of
course, but the point is that he does land on a relativist's position, one that
is not very different than the relativism of Boas and his contemporaries. Like
Rorty, the "twentieth century relativists .. held that it is unscientific to
interpret values" because "cultures are unique historical patterns which ..
cannot be judged in terms of the values of other cultures." Obviously, Rorty's
relativism is NOT, "backed by Boas's doctrines of scientific empiricism" but it
just as thoroughly denies the ability to interpret or judge.
That fits my nutshell definition of relativism and that's how Pirsig uses the
word when he's complaining about very crucial matters.
Someday you'll realize that this isn't personal. I mean, it's not that I don't
like you or Matt or Rorty. It's not like I'm against relativism just because
Marsha thinks it's a good thing. Why is it hard to believe that I'm really just
against relativism because it's a very bad thing and because it's one of the
things that the MOQ openly fights. It's not intellectually honest to dismiss
that part of the struggle.
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
