I think I agree with Dan:
>Why is it that cultural relatavism is deemed acceptable, but
>epistemological relativism is not?
>
I've been reading all this stuff about relativism, which seems to be
overlying a difference between Marxists and others (but who?) and I can't
resist asking:
What's wrong with relativism? (a lot of Foucault's difficulties seem to
come from trying to avoid relativism)
Jason asks: How can one attempt to ensure (why not achieve, work towards?)
a just and fair society .......?
Well, we all know the answer. By running political campaigns, using moral
blackmail, appealing to "common decency", putting forward "convincing"
arguments, .....
And of course, these who hold views we consider most evil can do exactly
the same thing.
So, do we hope that by appealing to our "elite" knowledge of philosophy,
logic, etc we can tip the balance, or at least be assured we were right all
along, even if we don't win.
Even if philosophy gave some "objective" guarantee, it wouldn't necessarily
win the media war.
And, following Dan, what has epistemological certainty got to do with it.
Being sure about atoms isn't going to help me decide between Christianity
and Islam.
Colin says of Hume (joking I hope) that his ethics were really appalling.
I assume the point Hume was making about "scratching his finger and
destroying the world" was that logic wouldn't support even the most
"obvious" ethical decisions. But why would we expect it to? Logic only
ever pushes us back to more basic premises. And won't ethics often
recommend "illogical" actions.
Colin also says:
"But we surely also have to ask what these associations are about and whether
such things really do act in such and such a way or not. Because if these
things do not act in such and such a way but only "our" reflection sees
them, or creates the appearance of such associations, then again we must all
be conspiring to reach agreement. This to me seems to be smuggling in a form
of mysticism which would have made even Hegel smile."
I thought that Foucault's main project in the power/knowledge area was to
show how "conspiring to reach agreement" was a simple, inevitable, day to
day activity, which had no element of mysticism. And metaphysics? I guess
the metaphysic is that "action is reality", but I'm not sure about that.
Colin's quote includes the phrase "really do act" which indicates some
other underlying metaphysic. What?
I guess my real question is: why are so many people so uncomfortable with
relativism?
or perhaps: for those of us who do not believe in some god-given "natural
law" whcih we can directly know, what alternative to relativism are you
actually proposing?
Jim
Jim Underwood
Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
PO Box 123,
BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AUSTRALIA
http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/
>Why is it that cultural relatavism is deemed acceptable, but
>epistemological relativism is not?
>
I've been reading all this stuff about relativism, which seems to be
overlying a difference between Marxists and others (but who?) and I can't
resist asking:
What's wrong with relativism? (a lot of Foucault's difficulties seem to
come from trying to avoid relativism)
Jason asks: How can one attempt to ensure (why not achieve, work towards?)
a just and fair society .......?
Well, we all know the answer. By running political campaigns, using moral
blackmail, appealing to "common decency", putting forward "convincing"
arguments, .....
And of course, these who hold views we consider most evil can do exactly
the same thing.
So, do we hope that by appealing to our "elite" knowledge of philosophy,
logic, etc we can tip the balance, or at least be assured we were right all
along, even if we don't win.
Even if philosophy gave some "objective" guarantee, it wouldn't necessarily
win the media war.
And, following Dan, what has epistemological certainty got to do with it.
Being sure about atoms isn't going to help me decide between Christianity
and Islam.
Colin says of Hume (joking I hope) that his ethics were really appalling.
I assume the point Hume was making about "scratching his finger and
destroying the world" was that logic wouldn't support even the most
"obvious" ethical decisions. But why would we expect it to? Logic only
ever pushes us back to more basic premises. And won't ethics often
recommend "illogical" actions.
Colin also says:
"But we surely also have to ask what these associations are about and whether
such things really do act in such and such a way or not. Because if these
things do not act in such and such a way but only "our" reflection sees
them, or creates the appearance of such associations, then again we must all
be conspiring to reach agreement. This to me seems to be smuggling in a form
of mysticism which would have made even Hegel smile."
I thought that Foucault's main project in the power/knowledge area was to
show how "conspiring to reach agreement" was a simple, inevitable, day to
day activity, which had no element of mysticism. And metaphysics? I guess
the metaphysic is that "action is reality", but I'm not sure about that.
Colin's quote includes the phrase "really do act" which indicates some
other underlying metaphysic. What?
I guess my real question is: why are so many people so uncomfortable with
relativism?
or perhaps: for those of us who do not believe in some god-given "natural
law" whcih we can directly know, what alternative to relativism are you
actually proposing?
Jim
Jim Underwood
Department of Information Systems phone +612 330 1831
University of Technology, Sydney fax +612 330 1807
PO Box 123,
BROADWAY 2007 e-mail: jim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AUSTRALIA
http://linus.socs.uts.edu.au/~jim/