[MD] suspended in language

[MarshaV]

> [Marsha:]
> Here is where I believe rejects ethical relativism, the ethical relativism
> that Plato was accusing Protagoras and the early sophists of teaching.  He
> doesn't reject all forms of relativism, but explicitly rejects ethical
> relativism:
>
> "Then Phædrus feels a tugging to read the passage again, and he does so
and
> then -- what's this?! -- ``That which we translate `virtue ' but is in
Greek
> `excellence.'''
> Lightning hits!
> Quality! Virtue! Dharma! That is what the Sophists were teaching! Not
> ethical relativism. Not pristine ``virtue.'' But areté. Excellence.
Dharma!
> Before the Church of Reason. Before substance. Before form. Before mind
and
> matter. Before dialectic itself. Quality had been absolute. Those first
> teachers of the Western world were teaching Quality, and the medium they
had
> chosen was that of rhetoric. He has been doing it right all along."
>   (RMP,ZMM,Chapter 29)


Steve:
What sort of relativism are you talking about if not ethical
relativism when you call yourself a relativist?

Marsha:
As far as I can remember, I've always thought, informally at least, that
everything was relative to everything. That is why I call myself a
relativist.  I thought I also recognized hints of relativism in ZMM and
LILA.  So far, I have read, 'Rereading the Sophists: Classical Rhetoric
Refigured' by Susan C. Jarratt and I've started reading 'Protagoras and the
Challenge of Relativism' by Ugo Zilioli. There a bunch more books to read
and consider.  I've already mentioned 'perceptual relativism',
'epistemological relativism', and 'ontological relativism'.  

Wasn't it you who didn't like the use of the label 'atheist'?  Ahhh, words,
what can they really be?  


Marsha