[MD] Rorty's Relativism

[Ian Glendinning]

DMB, Steve, Ron,
DMB, said
"I think .... that absolutism and relativism are both objectionable,
.... and that the best way is the middle way between those extremes
..... it is the views, not the labels, that are important."

I'd probably elaborate on views ... say, the way views are put into
action - to explain and to decide - to relate action and experience.

Steve said
Rorty sees the pragmatist tradition not as defining truth as
"warranted assertability" but instead as making the suggestion that we
stop looking for a theory of truth and focus on how we justify our
beliefs. It is only in talking about justification that we start
considering things like "intersubjective agreement" and "warranted
assertibility."

OK, Justification ... explain & decide action (based on experience and
beliefs) ... that's kind what I was suggesting.

Steve also said
"I don't think you'd want to use the word relativism at all unless you
encounter someone who takes the self-defeating position that nothing
is better or worse than anything else."

Steve also quote Pirsig from Lila's Child - avoiding any "absolutist"
or "foundationalist" view of MoQ.

I would say all that is fundamental about the MoQ is the evolutionary
framework it provides - the grid-iron - the quality of pure /
immediate experience being indefinable by design.

I see violent agreement on the middle ground that MoQ provides.
Any need to "attack" (or defend) Rorty just seems spurious ?

Ian