[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[Steve Peterson]

On Aug 17, 2009, at 1:26 AM, MarshaV wrote:

>
>
> Steve,
>
> Once again, what is your definition of relativism?
>
>
> Marsha

Hi Marsha,

I would like to see the term dropped from our vocabulary in part  
because it is so unclear what anybody means by the term and part  
because I'd like to see SOM, the philosophical system on which the  
term is based, dropped altogether. In every day usage, it just seems  
to be a catch-all term for anyone a conservative disagrees with.

In philosophy, my take is that relativism-absolutism is just another  
version of subjective-objective. It is the same question as asking if  
the quality is in the subject or the object. The claim that truth and  
morality are just subjective (relativism) is self-defeating because  
that claim itself then must be viewed as just subjective and needn't  
be taken seriously. So I don't think anyone should want to call  
herself a "relativist" because such a person will not be taken to  
even believe herself when she calls herself that.

In the MOQ, however, absolutism-relativism is one of those  
philosophical platypi that get dissolved to the point where you  
wonder why you even asked the question to begin with. Are morals  
cultural constructs? Of course they are, but so are atoms and  
mathematics. It doesn't mean that there aren't true and false things  
to be said about them. There is no problem for moral claims as well  
as factual claims to be thought of as having truth-value, so the MOQ  
denies relativism. And we can make such claims without imagining such  
essences as Natural Law or The Moral Law for such claims to try to  
conform to, so the MOQ also denies absolutism.

Best,
Steve