[MD] suspended in language

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt,

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 9:10 AM,  <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Steve,
>
> Do you consider avoiding foundationalism an absolute stance? Or is
> there wiggle room?

Steve:
I'm not sure what you mean by "an absolute stance." I don't think that
there is any foundation from which to make a claim that no one will
ever provide us with a foundation for justifying all our truth claims.
I just note that so far no one has ever done so and the fact that we
appear to be no closer to finding such a foundation than we were when
philosphy was first invented suggests to me that the pursuit of a
foundation is barking up the wrong tree.


Platt:
> Also, in your excellent exposition on relativism you mentioned
> "success," "progress," and a "better future." What  assumption(s) do you
> rely on to make such judgements? Are they culturally determined?

I don't think I would want to say that our judgments are culturally
*determined*, but we are all cultually conditioned, historically
situated human beings with no ability to step outside of this context.
Yet we can make judgments about our own cultures and question the
assumptions that underly even our own judgments, so we are better off
than just having Pavlovian responses to our environment.

I think we can be justified in thinking that we have made progress and
justified in hoping for more progress in the future. I don't think we
should spend any time hoping for a foundation on which to base our
claims that have made progress that will provide knock-down arguments
that will convionce all comers of our beliefs. I think the best we can
do is tell our stories to justify our belief that we have made
progress and convince others to work for the comntinuation of such
progress.



> Finally, do you agree with Pirsig's assertion: "Cultures can be graded
> and judged morally according to their contribution to the evolution of
> life." (Lila, 24)

Yes.


Best,
Steve