[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[MarshaV]

DMB,
 
Are there a number of different ways to be a relativist, for instance I
think static patterns represent a relative truth?  


Marsha   





-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of david buchanan
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2009 1:21 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism


dmb said:
I've learned that there is a whole school of pragmatism that distinguishes
itself in opposition to Rorty's brand of the same. Sandra Rosenthal is a
member of that school, the classical pragmatists. Like me, they insist that
radical empiricism is central to the whole thing.

Steve replied:
I suppose the issue has something to do with the "linguistic turn." While
the classical and neo-classical pragmatists talk about experience. Rorty
focuses on language. I'd be interested in hearing your take on the
linguistic turn and what is lost in taking this turn.

dmb says:
Yes, that's right. David Hildebrand writes (a paper and a book) about how
the linguistic turn led Rorty to a "theoretical starting point", which is at
odds with what he calls the "natural starting point" in James and Dewey,
both of whom were radical empiricists. And basically that's lost in his
theoretical starting point. Rorty doesn't begin with experience. He begins
with language. We hear this echoed in the way he construes the rejection of
the correspondence theory of truth as a matter of matching "sentences" with
reality. The radical empiricists instead says that valid concepts or high
quality ideas have to agree with experience. Rorty's starting point
basically has him rejecting any kind of empiricism. If memory serves, he
thinks epistemology is just as dead as metaphysics.

Steve said:
As far as radical empiricism being "central to the whole thing," it is
interesting that Pirsig read James to be saying that he thought that radical
empiricism was "independent of pragmatism." So it seems that someone can be
called a pragmatist without talking about radical empiricism.

dmb says:
Yea, James did say they were separate but contemporary classical pragmatists
have fused the two, which is what Pirsig does in Lila. Today, if you call
yourself a pragmatist but don't include radical empiricism, you're called a
neo-pragmatist instead of classical pragmatist. As I said to Matt a few
moons ago, I think we should both be flattered that our differences are
reflected in the differences between these two schools of pragmatism. It
shows that we can both find support among professionals, that the
professionals argue about the very same thing. If I have the advantage, it's
only because this is a forum for discussing Pirsig. If I went to similar
place that discussed Rorty most of the time, I imagine it would be tough to
make friends, if you know what I mean.

Steve said:
Another issue that may separate Rorty from other pragmatists is that Rorty
doesn't equate truth with "warranted assertability" which is why, as I
recall, Davidson never wanted to be called a pragmatist and why Putnam
didn't think Rorty was really a pragmatist.

dmb says:
Yea, Hildebrand's book is very much about the Rorty-Putnam debates and the
phrase "warranted assertability" gets used a lot. It's telling, I suppose,
that all three of those guys come out of the analytic tradition and when
that dream didn't pan out there was a tendency to find something less
ambitious as far as discovering "reality" and the "truth". I mean, I don't
like Putnam or Davidson any better than Rorty. Somehow that whole tradition
just smells like the kind of amoral rationality that Pirsig sought to
overcome.  Putnam, for example, thought that Rorty was a spoiler, a nihilist
and "an explicit cultural relativist". Even if that's only half way true, it
would still be very far away from what Pirsig is up to. 


Steve said:
When I hear the charge of relativism being made, all it sounds like is an
epithet that a Rigel type uses when he disagrees with someone else's
morality. As I see it, Rigel is going to walk away unconvinced by both
Pirsig's and Rorty's protestations about being called a relativist, but that
doesn't make either one a relativist. I completely understand that Pirsig
and Rorty will be accused of relativism by someone like Rigel, but I can't
understand how you would be interested in making the charge. Isn't asking if
morality is relative or absolute pretty much the same as asking whether it
is subjective or objective? 


dmb says:
I know what you mean. Whenever a person complains about relativism I find
myself waiting for the other shoe to drop. The next step is very, very often
a defense of God's morality or the greatness of one's own culture. In other
words, complaints about relativism are very often motivated by absolutism or
religious fanaticism. And Rigel himself, as a character, is kind of a dick.
But I can also tell you that the issue of relativism came up in every one of
my philosophy classes. Apparently, college kids these days are mostly one or
the other, either they are relativists or they are religious as hell.
Professors can't stand up in front of the classroom and dis religion but
they certainly have a few choice words about relativism. I mean, just
because a dick says it doesn't necessarily mean the point is invalid. 

I think your equation - where relative truths are subjective and absolute
truths are objective - is pretty damn good. That's one of the reasons I'm so
suspicious of Rorty notion of what counts as truth, namely "intersubjective
agreement". I think it's pretty clear that this is the idea that leads
Rorty's critics to conclude that he's an explicit cultural relativist.

Thanks,dmb

 
_________________________________________________________________
Get your vacation photos on your phone!
http://windowsliveformobile.com/en-us/photos/default.aspx?&OCID=0809TL-HM
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/