[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

On Aug 17, 2009, at 11:00 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> 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.


Steve:
I don't know how you could say that. I've explained the issue of  
relativism-absolutism several times.

For example, I just wrote to you:
> 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.



Marsha:
> 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?

Steve:
I'm cool with many truths, but what I've been trying to explain is  
that the truth of relativism can only exist within SOM where the  
question of subjectivity versus objectivity gets asked. But within  
SOM, to say that relativism is true is to also claim that relativism  
is no more true than absolutism since someone who is a relativist  
doesn't hold anything to be absolutely true.

In the MOQ, the question "is relativism true?" simply doesn't get  
asked since we've stopped asking whether the quality is in the  
subject or the object.


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

um...ok

Best,
Steve