[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[MarshaV]

Steve,

Recently read, 'Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric Refigured', I'm a
relativist and proud, and what you think I should or shouldn't call myself
has little impact on what I do or do not call myself, especially since you
will not define what the word does or doesn't mean as if the word is
relative only to the value you experience.  But they are your thoughts,
without meaning for me, so possibly if I add them to my annuals they might
produce an increase in flower growth.  Some more interesting thoughts on the
subject of relativism might be found in another book I plan to order through
ILL, 'Protagoras and the Challenge of Relativism', by Ugo Zilioli, ISBN-10:
0754660788, ISBN-13: 978-0754660781. (Such expensive books to affirm that
there is nothing to know and no one to know it!).  I like the idea of many
truths.  Gazillions of truths, all related to each other, and I love them
all, every last one of them, even the ones you cannot define.  What do you
think about many truths? 

If you can be very still, I will paint you blue.


Marsha  









-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 10:01 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Rorty's Relativism


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
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/