[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Marsha,


> What SOM premise does it 'imply' accepting?

It's the same issue that started the whole thing for Pirsig. The  
question of whether values are subjective or objective is the same as  
asking whether morality is relative or absolute. Pirsig denied this  
distinction as a false choice in favor of a historical narrative of  
the evolution of values.


> I like 'man is the measure of all things' because it captures the  
> truth of
> our dilemma. The MOQ says there can be many truths.  What is that  
> if it
> isn't relativism?

There are probably a whole lot of -isms that would apply such as  
historicism, anti-foundationalism, or perspectivalism. In the context  
of truth I think you could call it anti-essentialism, which is a  
denial that there is an essence of a thing to be known in favor of  
inexhaustible descriptions which relate a thing to other things. Lots  
of descriptions can be simultaneously true while no particular  
description could be said to be the essence of a thing any more than  
any other.

If we take an evolutionary view as Pirsig does, we see intellectual  
patterns as evolving form primitive grunts and scratches in the dirt  
as tools that were used to achieve specific purposes rather than  
attempts to represent reality. If we think of knowledge as a way of  
using reality rather than a way of representing reality, we never  
need to ask whether we have found the one true description of The Way  
Things Really Are. We don't need to priveledge any particular  
description as the true essence of a thing. We can just use whatever  
descriptions are best suited to our purposes.

In this view, to know a thing is not to capture it's essence in  
language but to be able to use it or put in in relation to some other  
thing. For example, all there is to know about the table I am sitting  
at is that certain sentences are true about it. It is brown, made of  
woody, it is too short, it is composed of atoms, it is hard, it is  
heavy, etc. We can write such sentences all day long. Which sentence  
is the essence of the table? Do we need to list more? At what point  
can we say that we have knowledge of the essence of the table if we  
are to think that there is an essence to it to be known (Kant's Thing  
In Itself)? Or are any of these intellectual patterns any more the  
essence of the table than any other? If knowledge is about finding  
good sentences to believe, and if sentences can only relate things to  
other things, then it is impossible to think that there is an essence  
of the table to be known that stands apart from its accidental  
relations to other things. And if language is a way of using reality  
rather than representing it, it is impossible to think that believing  
the wrong sentences takes us out of touch with reality. It just means  
we are using a hammer when a screw driver would better help us  
achieve our desires.

We then see absolutism-relativism as a false choice between being out  
of touch with something absolute or believing something that is  
merely relative. We get out of the dilemma by denying that the  
purpose of intellect is to represent reality at all and instead see  
intellect from an evolutionary perspective as a way of using reality.

Best,
Steve